[Peer groups: a model for the continuous professional development in general practice]

Use of the CPD-REACTION Questionnaire to Evaluate Continuing Professional Development Activities for Health Professionals: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Continuing professional development (CPD) is essential for physicians to maintain and enhance their knowledge, competence, skills, and performance. Web-based CPD plays an essential role. However, validated theory-informed measures of their impact are lacking. The CPD-REACTION questionnaire is a validated theory-informed tool that evaluates the impact of CPD activities on clinicians' behavioral intentions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to review the use of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire, which measures the impact of CPD activities on health professionals' intentions to change clinical behavior. We examined CPD activity characteristics, ranges of intention, mean scores, score distributions, and psychometric properties.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review informed by the Cochrane review methodology. We searched 8 databases from January 1, 2014, to April 20, 2021. Gray literature was identified using Google Scholar and Research Gate. Eligibility criteria included all health care professionals, any study design, and participants' completion of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire either before, after, or before and after a CPD activity. Study selection, data extraction, and study quality evaluation were independently performed by 2 reviewers. We extracted data on characteristics of studies, the CPD activity (eg, targeted clinical behavior and format), and CPD-REACTION use. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. Data extracted were analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Student t test (2-tailed) for bivariate analysis. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.

RESULTS

Overall, 65 citations were eligible and referred to 52 primary studies. The number of primary studies reporting the use of CPD-REACTION has increased continuously since 2014 from 1 to 16 publications per year (2021). It is available in English, French, Spanish, and Dutch. Most of the studies were conducted in Canada (30/52, 58%). Furthermore, 40 different clinical behaviors were identified. The most common CPD format was e-learning (34/52, 65%). The original version of the CPD-REACTION questionnaire was used in 31 of 52 studies, and an adapted version in 18 of 52 studies. In addition, 31% (16/52) of the studies measured both the pre- and postintervention scores. In 22 studies, CPD providers were university-based. Most studies targeted interprofessional groups of health professionals (31/52, 60%).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of CPD-REACTION has increased rapidly and across a wide range of clinical behaviors and formats, including a web-based format. Further research should investigate the most effective way to adapt the CPD-REACTION questionnaire to a variety of clinical behaviors and contexts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42018116492; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=116492.

Use of quality circles for primary care providers in 24 European countries: an online survey of European Society for Quality and Safety in family practice delegates

Objective: To identify and describe the core characteristics and the spread of quality circles in primary healthcare in European countries. Design: An online survey was conducted among European Society for Quality and Safety in Family Practice (EQuiP) delegates. To allow comparison with earlier results, a similar survey as in a study from 2000 was used. Setting: Primary Health Care in European countries. Subjects: General practitioners, delegated experts of the European Society for Quality and Safety in Family Practice (EQuiP). Main outcome measures: (1) Attendance in quality circles (2) their objectives (3) methods of quality improvement quality circles use (4) facilitator's role and training (5) role of institutions (6) supporting material and data sources quality circles use. Results: 76% of the delegates responded, representing 24 of 25 countries. In 13 countries, more than 10% of general practitioners participated in quality circles, compared with eight countries in 2000. The focus of quality circles moved from continuous medical education to quality improvement. Currently, quality circles groups use case-based discussions, educational materials and local opinion leaders in addition to audit and feedback. Some national institutions provide training for facilitators and data support for quality circle groups. Conclusion: The use of quality circles has increased in European countries with a shift in focus from continuous medical education to quality improvement. Well-trained facilitators are important, as is the use of varying didactic methods and quality improvement tools. Qualitative inquiry is necessary to examine why QCs thrive or fail in different countries and systems. KEY POINTS Countries with already established quality circle movements increased their participation rate and extended their range of quality circle activities The focus of quality circles has moved from CME/CPD to quality improvement Well-trained facilitators are important, as is the use of varying didactic methods and quality improvement tools Institutions should provide supporting material and training for facilitators.

Quality circles for quality improvement in primary health care: Their origins, spread, effectiveness and lacunae- A scoping review

Quality circles or peer review groups, and similar structured small groups of 6–12 health care professionals meet regularly across Europe to reflect on and improve their standard practice. There is debate over their effectiveness in primary health care, especially over their potential to change practitioners’ behaviour. Despite their popularity, we could not identify broad surveys of the literature on quality circles in a primary care context. Our scoping review was intended to identify possible definitions of quality circles, their origins, and reported effectiveness in primary health care, and to identify gaps in our knowledge. We searched appropriate databases and included any relevant paper on quality circles published until December 2017. We then compared information we found in the articles to that we found in books and on websites. Our search returned 7824 citations, from which we identified 82 background papers and 58 papers about quality circles. We found that they originated in manufacturing industry and that many countries adopted them for primary health care to continuously improve medical education, professional development, and quality of care. Quality circles are not standardized and their techniques are complex. We identified 19 papers that described individual studies, one paper that summarized 3 studies, and 1 systematic review that suggested that quality circles can effectively change behaviour, though effect sizes varied, depending on topic and context. Studies also suggested participation may affirm self-esteem and increase professional confidence. Because reports of the effect of quality circles on behaviour are variable, we recommend theory-driven research approaches to analyse and improve the effectiveness of this complex intervention.

[The path to continuing professional development]

Continuing professional development (CPD) is a new approach to continuing medical education and is based on: the assessment of the practitioner needs, pedagogy centered on practices and the consideration of the practitioner social accountability. In France, CPD became mandatory for all health professionals in 2009. However, we observe a delay in its implementation, due to several regulatory aspects. The main obstacles are the unique model of CPD for all occupations, the constraint of a single operator and the lack of scale quantifying the professional investment. By correcting these drawbacks, the CPD could really contribute to the continuous improvement of the quality and safety of care.