Costs and Economic Impacts of Physician Continuous Professional Development: A Systematic Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Nearly all health care professionals engage in continuous professional development (CPD), yet little is known about the cost and cost-effectiveness of physician CPD. Clarification of key concepts, comprehensive identification of published work, and determination of research gaps would facilitate application of existing evidence and planning for future investigations. The authors sought to systematically map study themes, methods, and outcomes in peer-reviewed literature on the cost and value of physician CPD. METHOD: The authors conducted a scoping review, systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Library databases for comparative economic evaluations of CPD for practicing physicians through April 2020. Two reviewers, working independently, screened all articles for inclusion. Three reviewers iteratively reviewed all included articles to inductively identify key features including participants, educational interventions, study designs, cost ingredients, and cost analyses. Two reviewers then independently reexamined all included articles to code these features. RESULTS: Of 3,338 potentially eligible studies, 111 were included. Physician specialties included internal, family, or general medicine (80 studies [72%]), surgery (14 studies [13%]), and medicine subspecialties (7 studies [6%]). Topics most often addressed general medicine (45 studies [41%]) or appropriate drug use (37 studies [33%]). Eighty-seven studies (78%) compared CPD with no intervention. Sixty-three studies (57%) reported the cost of training, and 79 (71%) evaluated the economic impact (money saved/lost following CPD). Training cost ingredients (median 3 itemized per study) and economic impact ingredients (median 1 per study) were infrequently and incompletely identified, quantified, or priced. Twenty-seven studies (24%) reported cost-impact expressions such as cost-effectiveness ratio or net value. Nineteen studies (17%) reported sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Studies evaluating the costs and economic impact of physician CPD are few. Gaps exist in identification, quantification, pricing, and analysis of cost outcomes. The authors propose a comprehensive framework for appraising ingredients and a preliminary reference case for economic evaluations.

Barriers to identifying and obtaining CME: a national survey of physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants.

BACKGROUND: CPD educators and CME providers would benefit from further insight regarding barriers and supports in obtaining CME, including sources of information about CME. To address this gap, we sought to explore challenges that clinicians encounter as they seek CME, and time and monetary support allotted for CME. METHODS: In August 2018, we surveyed licensed US clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants), sampling 100 respondents each of family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants (1895 invited, 500 [26.3%] responded). The Internet-based questionnaire addressed barriers to obtaining CME, sources of CME information, and time and monetary support for CME. RESULTS: The most often-selected barriers were expense (338/500 [68%]) and travel time (N = 286 [57%]). The source of information about CME activities most commonly selected was online search (N = 348 [70%]). Direct email, professional associations, direct mail, and journals were also each selected by > 50% of respondents. Most respondents reported receiving 1-6 days (N = 301 [60%]) and $1000-$5000 (n = 263 [53%]) per year to use in CME activities. Most (> 70%) also reported no change in time or monetary support over the past 24 months. We found few significant differences in responses across clinician type or age group. In open-ended responses, respondents suggested eight ways to enhance CME: optimize location, reduce cost, publicize effectively, offer more courses and content, allow flexibility, ensure accessibility, make content clinically relevant, and encourage application. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians report that expense and travel time are the biggest barriers to CME. Time and money support is limited, and not increasing. Online search and email are the most frequently-used sources of information about CME. Those who organize and market CME should explore options that reduce barriers of time and money, and creatively use online tools to publicize new offerings.

What Influences Choice of Continuing Medical Education Modalities and Providers? A National Survey of U.S. Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants.

PURPOSE: To explore what influences clinicians in selecting continuing medical education (CME) activities in the United States. METHOD: In August 2018, the authors conducted an Internet-based national survey, sampling 100 respondents from each of 5 groups: family medicine physicians, internal medicine and hospitalist physicians, medicine specialist physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. In total, 1,895 clinicians were invited and 500 (26%) responded. Questions addressed the selection and anticipated use of CME delivery modalities and perceived characteristics of specific CME providers. Response formats used best-worst scaling or 5-point ordinal response options. RESULTS: The factors identified as most important in selecting CME activities were topic (best-worst scaling net positivity 0.54), quality of content (0.51), availability of CME credit (0.43), and clinical practice focus (0.41), while referral frequency (-0.57) ranked lowest. The activities that the respondents anticipated using most in the future were live (mean 3.8 [1 = not likely, 5 = very likely]), online (mean 3.5), point-of-care (mean 3.5), and print-based (mean 3.5) activities. For online CME, the features of greatest appeal were that learning could be done when clinicians had time (mean 4.4), at their own pace (mean 4.2), and at lower cost (mean 4.2). For live CME, the features of greatest appeal were that the subject was best taught using this modality (mean 4.0), or the activity was located in a destination spot (mean 4.0) or a regional location (mean 3.9). When rating specific CME providers, most academic institutions received relatively high ratings for research focus and clinical practice focus, whereas commercial providers had slightly higher ratings for ease of access. Responses were generally similar across clinician types and age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are interested in using a variety of CME delivery modalities. Appealing features of online and live CME were different.

Educational Technologies for Physician Continuous Professional Development: A National Survey.

PURPOSE: To determine the past experiences with, current use of, and anticipated use of online learning and simulation-based education among practicing U.S. physicians, and how findings vary by age. METHOD: The authors surveyed 4,648 randomly sampled board-certified U.S. physicians, September 2015 to April 2016, using Internet-based and paper questionnaires. Survey items (some optional) addressed past and current technology usage, perceived technology effectiveness, and anticipated future use of specific technology innovations. RESULTS: Of 988 respondents, 444 completed optional items. Of these, 429/442 (97.1%) had used online learning and 372/442 (84.2%) had used simulation-based education in the past five years. Desire for more online learning was modest (mean [standard deviation], 4.6 [1.5]; 1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), as was desire for more simulation-based education (4.2 [1.7]). Both online learning and simulation-based education were perceived as effective (5.2 [1.4]; 5.0 [1.4]). Physicians believed they possess adequate skills for online learning (5.8 [1.2]) and that point-of-care learning is vital to effective patient care (5.3 [1.3]). Only 39.0% used objective performance data to guide their learning choices, although 64.6% agreed that such information would be useful. The highest-rated innovations included a central repository for listing educational opportunities and tracking continuing education credits, an app to award credit for answering patient-focused questions, 5-minute and 20-minute clinical updates, and an e-mailed "question of the week." Responses to most survey items were similar across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Practicing physicians generally seem receptive and prepared to use a variety of educational technologies, regardless of age.