Journal Article

Funding for continuing medical education/CMAJ Editor-in-chief responds

Murray, Suzanne, Allen, Michael, Sinclair, Douglas, King, Susan, Regier, Loren, Hébert, Paul C, Bean, Tupper, Bugden, Shawn, Jin, Margaret, Marlow, Bernard A, Mongeau, Isabelle, Becker, Allan B, Falz, Stefanie, Nguyen, Anne, Stern, Sol, Bunka, Debbie, Cranston, Lynda

2008

Overview

Paul Hébert and the CMAJ Editorial-Writing Team appear to be unaware of the current state of Canadian continuing health education.1 Although there is always a need for improvement, the College of Family Physicians of Canada rejects the notion that continuing health education in Canada is \"a truly broken system.\"1 The editorialists not only selected dated studies and American statistics to support their positions but also ignored the significant changes to Canadian accreditation criteria; by using these revised criteria, existing professional organizations now fulfill many of the roles the editorialists propose for an Institute of Continuing Health Education. Perhaps most disturbingly, by suggesting that most physicians are irresponsible and greedy in their pursuit of opportunities for continuing medical education, the editorialists insulted the majority of Canadian physicians, who conscientiously and ethically pay for a substantive portion of their continuing education. For those of us involved in the accreditation of continuing professional development programs, the funding provided by pharmaceutical companies for such events is an ongoing and important concern.1 The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada has been actively working in collaboration with the national specialty societies and the university offices of continuing medical education to establish standards for commercial support of continuing medical education. For example, the Committee on Accreditation of Continuing Medical Education, the National Committee on Continuing Medical Education of the College of Family Physicians of Canada and the Royal College's Continuing Professional Development Accreditation Committee have promoted increasingly rigorous standards that all accredited providers and programs must fulfill. The editorial's call for the creation of an arm's-length institute to provide oversight1 would appear to be premature in light of work already under way. The editorial incorrectly implies that the majority of accredited group events for continuing professional development are funded by pharmaceutical companies. In fact, we have seen a tremendous shift in the approach to continuing medical education, informed by growing research evidence on the effectiveness of continuing professional development. The old model of continuing medical education where experts lectured to passive participants on the latest innovations in medicine at the local Holiday Inn has been largely been replaced by education that promotes interactive learning and reflection on multiple practice dimensions (clinical, administrative, research and education) and competencies. Unfortunately, the editorial makes only a passing reference to the myriad of strategies embedded within the College of Family Physicians' Mainpro and the Royal College's maintenance of competence programs. The Royal College will continue to develop and implement standards for effective continuing professional education, promote lifelong learning, explore ways to integrate education into clinical practice and explore interprofessional education in collaboration with multiple partners.

• Publisher: CMA Impact, Inc