Disclosures: The authors report this study was supported by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain with Department of Health funding. The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose.
A Framework for Assessing Continuing Professional Development Activities for Satisfying Pharmacy Revalidation Requirements†
Version of Record online: 17 JUN 2013
Copyright © 2013 The Alliance for Continuing Education in the Health Professions, the Society for Academic Continuing Medical Education, and the Council on CME, Association for Hospital Medical Education
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions
Volume 33, Issue 2, pages 127–135, Spring 2013
How to Cite
Donyai, P., Alexander, A. M. and Denicolo, P. M. (2013), A Framework for Assessing Continuing Professional Development Activities for Satisfying Pharmacy Revalidation Requirements. J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof., 33: 127–135. doi: 10.1002/chp.21174
- Issue online: 17 JUN 2013
- Version of Record online: 17 JUN 2013
- continuing professional development (CPD);
- continuing pharmacy education;
- comparative effectiveness research
The United Kingdom's pharmacy regulator contemplated using continuing professional development (CPD) in pharmacy revalidation in 2009, simultaneously asking pharmacy professionals to demonstrate the value of their CPD by showing its relevance and impact. The idea of linking new CPD requirements with revalidation was yet to be explored. Our aim was to develop and validate a framework to guide pharmacy professionals to select CPD activities that are relevant to their work and to produce a score sheet that would make it possible to quantify the impact and relevance of CPD.
We adapted an existing risk matrix, producing a CPD framework consisting of relevance and impact matrices. Concepts underpinning the framework were refined through feedback from 5 pharmacist teacher-practitioners. We then asked 7 pharmacists to rate the relevance of the framework's individual elements on a 4-point scale to determine content validity. We explored views about the framework through focus groups with 6 participants and interviews with 17 participants who had used it formally in a study.
The framework's content validity index was 0.91. Feedback about the framework related to 3 themes of penetrability of the framework, usefulness to completion of CPD, and advancement of CPD records for the purpose of revalidation.
The framework can help professionals better select CPD activities prospectively, and makes assessment of CPD more objective by allowing quantification, which could be helpful for revalidation. We believe the framework could potentially help other health professionals with better management of their CPD irrespective of their field of practice.