How do Norwegian GPs experience participation in mandatory groups for continuing medical education?

Torunn Bjerve Eide

Keywords: Continuing medical education. Quality improvement. Professional update. Mixed-methods.

Background:

To ensure high-quality services in general practice, we need both a comprehensive specialist education as well as evidence-based professional development after specialisation. Norwegian GP specialists participate in mandatory Continuing Medical Education (CME) groups. We lack research on the GPs experience and evaluation of these groups.

Research questions:

How do current CME groups function both organizationally and in terms of content? What do GPs perceive as the groups' most important functions and needs of improvement?

Method:

All Norwegian GPs were invited to participate in the study. A questionnaire was developed and piloted by experienced general practitioners and researchers. The questionnaire includes both closed-ended and free-text questions. Collected data will be analysed quantitatively and with thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke.

Results:

579 GPs answered the questionnaire, 59% were female, 89% were GP specialist. The CME groups consisted of from 2 to 17 participants (median 6). 38% of the groups consisted of GPs working together, while remaining groups consisted of GPs from different practices. Mean time of participation in the same CME groups was 10 years (range 0 to 45). 91.5% of respondents were happy or very happy with the total experience in their CME group. The groups were seen as important not only as a compulsory activity, but also for quality improvement, professional updates and even a social setting. Many expressed that the groups gave an essential support when dealing with professionally difficult issues. Some called for an idea bank for subjects to discuss in the groups, however many emphasised that the groups function very well as they were.

Conclusions:

Norwegian GPs reported very positive experiences with their mandatory CME groups. As the GPs´ everyday work can be relatively lonely, the groups´ role as a professional and emotional sounding board was seen as important. Further findings will be presented at the congress.

Points for discussion:

1. How do we best secure further professional development for GP specialists, and how is this done in your country?

2. Is there a difference in the needs regarding professional development for GPs as compared to other medical specialist?

#34