Continuing professional development (CPD) for anesthetists: A systematic review.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-11 DOI:10.1111/aas.14306
John Asger Petersen, Lucy Bray, Doris Østergaard
{"title":"Continuing professional development (CPD) for anesthetists: A systematic review.","authors":"John Asger Petersen, Lucy Bray, Doris Østergaard","doi":"10.1111/aas.14306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In accordance with the focus on patient safety and quality in healthcare, continuing professional development (CPD) has received increasing levels of attention as a means to ensure physicians maintain their clinical competencies and are fit to practice. There is some evidence of a beneficial effect of CPD, though few studies have evaluated its effect within anesthesia. The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish which CPD activities anesthetists are engaged in and their effectiveness. The secondary aim was to explore which methods are employed to evaluate anesthetists' clinical performance.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Databases searched: Medline, Embase and Web of Science, in May 2023. Additional papers were identified through searching the references of included studies. Eligible studies included anesthetists, either exclusively or combined with other healthcare professionals, who underwent a learning activity or assessment method as part of a formalized CPD program or a stand-alone activity. Non-English language studies, non-peer reviewed studies and studies published prior to 2000 were excluded. Eligible studies were quality assessed and narratively synthesized, with results presented as descriptive summaries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2112 studies were identified, of which 63 were eligible for inclusion, encompassing more than 137,518 participants. Studies were primarily of quantitative design and medium quality. Forty-one studies reported outcomes of single learning activities, whilst 12 studies investigated different roles of assessment methods in CPD and ten studies evaluated CPD programs or combined CPD activities. A 36 of the 41 studies reported positive effects of single learning activities. Investigations of assessment methods revealed evidence of inadequate performance amongst anesthetists and a mixed effect of feedback. Positive attitudes and high levels of engagement were identified for CPD programs, with some evidence of a positive impact on patient/organizational outcomes.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Anesthetists are engaged in a variety of CPD activities, with evidence of high levels of satisfaction and a positive learning effect. However, the impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes remains unclear and the role of assessment is less well-defined. There is a need for further, high-quality studies, evaluating a broader range of outcomes, in order to identify which methods are most effective to train and assess specialists in anesthesia.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":"2-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14306","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: In accordance with the focus on patient safety and quality in healthcare, continuing professional development (CPD) has received increasing levels of attention as a means to ensure physicians maintain their clinical competencies and are fit to practice. There is some evidence of a beneficial effect of CPD, though few studies have evaluated its effect within anesthesia. The primary aim of this systematic review was to establish which CPD activities anesthetists are engaged in and their effectiveness. The secondary aim was to explore which methods are employed to evaluate anesthetists' clinical performance.

Methods: Databases searched: Medline, Embase and Web of Science, in May 2023. Additional papers were identified through searching the references of included studies. Eligible studies included anesthetists, either exclusively or combined with other healthcare professionals, who underwent a learning activity or assessment method as part of a formalized CPD program or a stand-alone activity. Non-English language studies, non-peer reviewed studies and studies published prior to 2000 were excluded. Eligible studies were quality assessed and narratively synthesized, with results presented as descriptive summaries.

Results: A total of 2112 studies were identified, of which 63 were eligible for inclusion, encompassing more than 137,518 participants. Studies were primarily of quantitative design and medium quality. Forty-one studies reported outcomes of single learning activities, whilst 12 studies investigated different roles of assessment methods in CPD and ten studies evaluated CPD programs or combined CPD activities. A 36 of the 41 studies reported positive effects of single learning activities. Investigations of assessment methods revealed evidence of inadequate performance amongst anesthetists and a mixed effect of feedback. Positive attitudes and high levels of engagement were identified for CPD programs, with some evidence of a positive impact on patient/organizational outcomes.

Discussion: Anesthetists are engaged in a variety of CPD activities, with evidence of high levels of satisfaction and a positive learning effect. However, the impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes remains unclear and the role of assessment is less well-defined. There is a need for further, high-quality studies, evaluating a broader range of outcomes, in order to identify which methods are most effective to train and assess specialists in anesthesia.

麻醉师的持续专业发展(CPD):系统回顾。
背景:随着人们对患者安全和医疗质量的关注,持续专业发展(CPD)作为一种确保医生保持临床能力并适合执业的手段受到了越来越多的关注。有证据表明持续专业发展具有一定的益处,但很少有研究对其在麻醉领域的效果进行评估。本系统性综述的主要目的是确定麻醉师参与的 CPD 活动及其效果。次要目的是探讨采用哪些方法来评估麻醉师的临床表现:方法:检索数据库:2023年5月的Medline、Embase和Web of Science。通过搜索已纳入研究的参考文献还发现了其他论文。符合条件的研究包括麻醉师,无论是单独或与其他医疗保健专业人员一起,作为正式的继续医学教育项目或独立活动的一部分,接受学习活动或评估方法的麻醉师。非英语研究、非同行评审研究和 2000 年以前发表的研究均被排除在外。对符合条件的研究进行了质量评估和叙述性综合,结果以描述性摘要的形式呈现:共确定了 2112 项研究,其中 63 项符合纳入条件,涉及超过 137518 名参与者。研究主要采用定量设计,质量中等。41 项研究报告了单一学习活动的成果,12 项研究调查了评估方法在持续专业发展中的不同作用,10 项研究评估了持续专业发展计划或综合持续专业发展活动。41 项研究中有 36 项报告了单一学习活动的积极效果。对评估方法的调查显示,有证据表明麻醉师的表现不佳,反馈的效果也参差不齐。持续专业发展项目的态度积极,参与度高,有证据表明对患者/组织结果产生了积极影响:讨论:麻醉师参与了各种 CPD 活动,有证据表明他们的满意度很高,学习效果积极。然而,对临床实践和患者疗效的影响仍不明确,评估的作用也不太明确。有必要进一步开展高质量的研究,对更广泛的结果进行评估,以确定哪些方法对麻醉专家的培训和评估最为有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信