Where do Peer Review Groups fit in the international Continuing Professional Development literature?

How peer review groups support learning and wellbeing in psychiatrists

OBJECTIVE

To explore the self-reported value of Peer Review Groups (PRGs) by Australian psychiatrists, focussing on learning and wellbeing.

METHODS

A cross-sectional mixed-methods online survey of psychiatrists registered with the NSW Branch Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP) who had attended a PRG in the previous 12 months.

RESULTS

Respondents described PRG participation as supportive to their learning and to their professional wellbeing by sharing professional experiences, emotional support for the inherent stresses of practice, the provision of a space for debriefing and the amelioration of professional isolation. Difficulties or challenges in group functioning were reported rarely and included new group member selection and limitations to individual support provided by the group.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRG form of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) is unique, popular and highly valued by psychiatrists. In addition to supporting learning, PRGs provide a collegial space for processing of emotional aspects of practice that in turn supports wellbeing. Other healthcare professionals might benefit from similar self-directed, self-selected small group peer contact for CPD.

Psychiatry peer review groups in Australia: a mixed-methods exploration of structure and function

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to examine Australian psychiatrists' experience of participation in a small group learning format of continuing professional development, known as peer review groups (PRGs), with a particular emphasis on group structure and functions.

METHOD

An exploratory mixed-methods study comprising a survey (n=77) and semistructured interviews (n=6) with Australian psychiatrists participating in a PRG in the previous 12 months.

RESULTS

Qualitative findings indicate that PRGs address experiential learning through a focus on both breadth and specificity of work, as well as participants' experiences. Participants described using PRGs as a forum to manage difficult and complex work (through critiquing work, learning from one another, considering theory and guidelines, benchmarking, validating, reflecting and generalising learning) and to manage stress and well-being associated with crises, everyday stress and professional isolation. Particular structural aspects of PRGs considered essential to achieve these functions were self-selection of members, self-direction of meeting content and provision of a safe environment. These findings were convergent with the quantitative findings from scale survey data. Difficulties experienced during PRG participation are also described.

CONCLUSION

Qualitative and quantitative findings from psychiatry PRGs demonstrate how practice-based professional experience functions as both a source of learning and of collegial connection that contributes to well-being and reduction in professional stress. Study limitations and future research directions are discussed.