From field of dreams to back to the future? Exploring barriers to participating in continuing professional development (CPD) programs

BACKGROUND

In 2009, Yvonne Steinert et al., at McGill University, published a study exploring barriers to faculty development (FD) participation among urban faculty. Over a decade later, we set out to replicate and expand on that study to learn what has changed in continued professional development (CPD) and what the current barriers are to participation in CPD for specialists and family physicians in rural and urban locations.

METHODS

Informed by a collaborative inquiry research framework, we invited faculty across rural and urban Saskatchewan to focus groups and interview sessions. The results were analyzed for themes.

RESULTS

Thirty-four faculty members from both rural and urban areas participated in this study. Of these, 50% were female, 74% practiced in urban areas, and 56% had over 20 years of experience. Frequently cited reasons for nonparticipation included time constraints, organizational and logistical challenges, poor resonance with material and presenters, and lack of recognition for teaching provided. Racism contributed to feelings of disconnectedness among physician faculty members.

CONCLUSION

Even after more than a decade, our research uncovered consistent reasons for nonparticipation in locally organized CPD events. New findings highlighted feelings of disconnectedness, notably stemming from racism and workplace discrimination. However, with recent societal developments brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, can we ride these major waves of change to a new future of engagement? The pandemic led to a shift to virtual and hybrid professional development programs, presenting both benefits and challenges. Additionally, the peri-COVID anti-racism movement may positively address previously unidentified reasons for nonattendance. Harnessing these major changes could lead to a new future of engagement for continued professional development.

Currencies of recognition: What rewards and recognition do Canadian distributed medical education preceptors value?

Background: Medical schools spend considerable time, effort, and money on recognition initiatives for rural and distributed medical education (DME) faculty. Previous literature has focused on intrinsic motivation to teach and there is little in the literature to guide institutional recognition efforts or to predict which items or types of recognition will be most appreciated.

Methods: To better understand how rural and DME faculty in Canada value different forms of recognition, we asked faculty members from all Canadian medical schools to complete a bilingual, national online survey evaluating their perceptions of currently offered rewards and recognition. The survey received a robust response in both English and French, across nine Canadian provinces and one territory.

Results: Our results indicated that there were three distinct ways that preceptors looked at recognition; these perspectives were consistent across geographic and demographic variables. These “clusters” or “currencies of recognition” included: i) Formal institutional recognition, ii) connections, growth and development, and iii) tokens of gratitude. Financial recognition was also found to be important but separate from the three clusters. Some preceptors did value support of intrinsic motivation most important, and for others extrinsic motivators, or a mix of both was most valued.

Conclusions: Study results will help medical schools make effective choices in efforts to find impactful ways to recognize rural and DME faculty.

Challenges, success factors and pitfalls: implementation of distributed medical education

OBJECTIVES

There are only a few descriptive reports on the implementation of distributed medical education (DME) and these provide accounts of successful implementation from the senior leadership perspective. In Saskatchewan, over a period of 4 years (2010-2014), four family medicine residency sites were established and two additional sites could not be developed. The aim of this study was to identify challenges, success factors and pitfalls in DME implementation based upon experiences of multiple stakeholders with both successful and unsuccessful outcomes.

METHODS

Data were obtained through document analysis (n = 64, spanning 2009-2016; perspectives of government, senior leadership, management and learners), focus groups of management and operations personnel (n = 10) and interviews of senior leaders (n = 4). Challenges and success factors were ascertained through categorisation. Iterative coding guided by three sensitising frameworks was used to determine themes in organisational dynamics.

RESULTS

Both challenges and success factors included contextual variables, governance, inter- and intra-organisational relationships (most common success factor), resources (most common challenge), the learning environment and pedagogy. Management and operations were only a challenge. Organisational themes affecting the outcome and the pitfalls included the pace of development across multiple sites, collaborative governance, continuity in senior leadership, operations alignment and reconciliation of competing goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Emerging opportunities for DME can be leveraged through collaborative governance, aligned operations and resolution of competing goals, even in constrained contexts, to translate political will into success; however, there are pitfalls that need to be avoided. Our findings based upon multi-stakeholder perspectives add to the body of knowledge on deployment, carefully considering the conditions for success and associated pitfalls.