Advertisement

International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 1250–1257 | Cite as

Training on the use of a bespoke continuing professional development framework improves the quality of CPD records

  • Parastou DonyaiEmail author
  • Angela M. Alexander
Research Article

Abstract

Background Using continuing professional development (CPD) as part of the revalidation of pharmacy professionals has been proposed in the UK but not implemented. We developed a CPD outcomes framework (‘the framework’) for scoring CPD records, where the score range was −100 to +150 based on demonstrable relevance and impact of the CPD on practice. Objective This exploratory study aimed to test the outcome of training people to use the framework, through distance-learning material (active intervention), by comparing CPD scores before and after training. Setting Pharmacy professionals were recruited in the UK in Reading, Banbury, Southampton, Kingston-upon-Thames and Guildford in 2009. Method We conducted a randomised, double-blinded, parallel-group, before and after study. The control group simply received information on new CPD requirements through the post; the active intervention group also received the framework and associated training. Altogether 48 participants (25 control, 23 active) completed the study. All participants submitted CPD records to the research team before and after receiving the posted resources. The records (n = 226) were scored blindly by the researchers using the framework. A subgroup of CPD records (n = 96) submitted first (before-stage) and rewritten (after-stage) were analysed separately. Main outcome measure Scores for CPD records received before and after distributing group-dependent material through the post. Results Using a linear-regression model both analyses found an increase in CPD scores in favour of the active intervention group. For the complete set of records, the effect was a mean difference of 9.9 (95 % CI 0.4–19.3), p value = 0.04. For the subgroup of rewritten records, the effect was a mean difference of 17.3 (95 % CI 5.6–28.9), p value = 0.0048. Conclusion The intervention improved participants’ CPD behaviour. Training pharmacy professionals to use the framework resulted in better CPD activities and CPD records, potentially helpful for revalidation of pharmacy professionals.

Keywords

Continuing professional development (CPD) Credentialing Comparative effectiveness research Pharmacy United Kingdom 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank the RPSGB research steering committee, CPPE, Rebecca Herbert, Pam Denicolo, and the University’s Statistical Services Centre.

Funding

This study was supported by the RPSGB with Department of Health funding.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Department of Health. The white paper trust, assurance and safety: the regulation of health professionals. In: Crown (ed) Department of Health, 2007. ISBN 9780101701327.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    General Medical Council. The good medical practice framework for appraisal and revalidation. General Medical Council (2011). p 8. http://www.gmc-uk.org/GMP_framework_for_appraisal_and_revalidation.pdf_41326960.pdf.
  3. 3.
    General Dental Council. Continuing professional development (CPD) for dental care professionals. London: General Dental Council. (2011) p 20. https://www.gdcuk.org/Newsandpublications/Publications/Publications/ContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentforDentalProfessionals.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Hasman A. Get ready for revalidation in pharmacy. Pharm J. 2009;283:486.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    International Pharmaceutical Federation. FIP statement of professional standards: continuing professional development. The Netherlands: International Pharmaceutical Federation. 2002. p 4. http://www.fip.org/www/uploads/database_file.php?id=221&table_id=.
  6. 6.
    Royal pharmaceutical society of Great Britain. Plan and record for pharmacists and pharmacy technicians. 2009. http://www.uptodate.org.uk/PlanandRecord/version4/PlanandRecordVersion14CompleteGuidancePack.pdf.
  7. 7.
    Executive agency for health and consumers. Study concerning the review and mapping of continuous professional development and lifelong learning for health professionals in the EU. 2013. p 448. http://ec.europa.eu/health/workforce/docs/cpd_mapping_report_en.pdf.
  8. 8.
    International Pharmaceutical Federation. Continuing professional development/continuing education in pharmacy: global report. The Netherlands: International Pharmaceutical Federation. 2014. p 46. http://www.fip.org/files/fip/PharmacyEducation/CPD_CE_report/FIP_2014_Global_Report_CPD_CE_online_version.pdf.
  9. 9.
    Pharmacy Council of New Zealand. Recertification framework and guidelines. 2012. p 15. http://www.pharmacycouncil.org.nz/cms_show_download.php?id=295.
  10. 10.
    General Pharmaceutical Council. Standards for continuing professional development. 2010. p 5. http://www.pharmacyregulation.org/sites/default/files/Standards%20for%20continuing%20professional%20development%20s.pdf.
  11. 11.
    Donyai P, Herbert RZ, Denicolo PM, Alexander AM. British pharmacy professionals’ beliefs and participation in continuing professional development: a review of the literature. Int J Pharm Pract. 2011;19:290–317.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thompson W, Nissen LM. Australian pharmacists’ understanding of their continuing professional development obligations. J Pharm Pract Res. 2013;43:213–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Anonymous. Draft future standards for the pharmacy profession have been published for consultation. Pharm J. 2009;283:435.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Donyai P, Alexander AM, Denicolo PM. A framework for assessing continuing professional development activities for satisfying pharmacy revalidation requirements. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2013;33:127–35.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McConnell KJ, Newlon CL, Delate T. The impact of continuing professional development versus traditional continuing pharmacy education on pharmacy practice. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44:1585–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burgess S,Natalie LeBlanc N, Rainkie D, Roels C, Louie S. Are standardized knowledge assessment exams the best way to assess a pharmacist’s competence and should they be a mandatory component of licence renewal?. Can J Hosp Pharm. 2014;67(4):304–7.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Biggs J. Teaching for quality learning at University. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University; 2003. ISBN 0-335-21168-2.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kostrzewski AJ, Dhillon S, Goodsman D, Taylor KM. The influence of continuing professional development portfolio records on pharmacy practice. Int J Pharm Pract. 2009;17:107–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schafheutle EI, Hassell K, Noyce PR. Ensuring continuing fitness to practice in the pharmacy workforce: understanding the challenges of revalidation. Res Soc Adm Pharm. 2013;9:199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Reading School of PharmacyUniversity of ReadingWhiteknights, BerkshireUK
  2. 2.Centre for Inter-Professional Postgraduate Education and Training (CIPPET), Reading School of PharmacyUniversity of ReadingBerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations