Search

This study aimed to compare patient outcomes following case method learning and traditional lectures as methods for continuing medical education (CME) about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for general practitioners (GPs) in Sweden. In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial, COPD patients (n = 425; case method group n = 209, traditional lectures group n = 216) from 24 primary health care centers replied to questionnaires prior to and 18 months after a 2 × 2-h CME was given to GPs (n = 255). We measured changes in the scores of the Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ), symptoms, needs for disease information, exacerbations, smoking, and use of pulmonary rehabilitation. The changes over time were similar for both CME methods. Patients who had used pulmonary rehabilitation increased from 13.2 to 17.8% (P = 0.04), and prevalence of smoking decreased from 28.9 to 25.1% (P = 0.003). In conclusion, neither of the used CME methods was superior than the other regarding patient outcomes. CME's primary value may lay in improving GPs' adherence to guidelines, which should lead to long-term positive changes in patient health.

Objectives: To study the effects of continuing medical education (CME) about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for general practitioners (GPs) by comparing two commonly used CME methods with each other and no CME (reference group)., Design: A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with primary healthcare centres (PHCCs) as units of randomisation., Setting, Participants and Interventions: 24 PHCCs in Stockholm County, Sweden, were randomised into two CME intervention arms: case method learning (CM) (n=12) and traditional lectures (TL) (n=12). A reference group without CME (n=11) was recruited separately. GPs (n=255) participated in the study arm to which their PHCC was allocated: CM, n=87; TL, n=93; and reference, n=75. Two 2-hour CME seminars were given in a period of 3 months., Primary Outcome Measures: Changes in scores between baseline and 12 months on a 13-item questionnaire about evidence-based COPD management (0-2 points/question, maximum total score 26 points)., Results: 133 (52%) GPs completed the questionnaire both at baseline and 12 months. Both CM and TL resulted in small yet significantly higher total scores at 12 months than at baseline (CM, 10.34 vs 11.44; TL, 10.21 vs 10.91; p<0.05); there were few significant differences between these CME methods. At both baseline and 12 months, all three groups' scores were generally high on questions about smoking cessation support and low on those that measured spirometry interpretation skills, interprofessional care and management of multimorbidity., Conclusions: Neither short CM nor short TL CME sessions substantially improve GPs' skills in managing COPD. It is justified to challenge the use of these common CME methods as a strategy for improving GPs' level of knowledge about management of COPD and other complex chronic diseases characterised by multimorbidity., Trial Registration Number: NCT02213809; Results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HS has received honoraria for educational activities from Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and TEVA and an unrestricted research grant from AstraZeneca. AN has received compensation for educational activities from AstraZeneca and SM from Novartis. BS has received honoraria for educational activities and lectures from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Meda, Novartis, and TEVA and has served on advisory boards arranged by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Meda, TEVA, GlaxoSmithKline, and Boehringer Ingelheim., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. It is often undiagnosed and insufficiently managed. Effective forms of continuing medical education (CME) for primary care physicians (PCPs) are necessary to ensure the implementation of guidelines in clinical practice and, thus, improve patients' health., Methods: In this study, we will measure the effects of CME by Case Method and compare them against those of traditional lectures and no CME at all through an unblinded, cluster randomised controlled trial (CRCT). Thirty-three primary health care centres (PHCCs) in Stockholm, Sweden, with a total of 180 PCPs will be involved. Twenty-two primary PHCCs, will be cluster-randomised into: an intervention group who will receive CME by Case Method (n = 11) and a control group who will receive traditional lectures (n = 11). The remaining PHCCs (n = 11) will be a reference group and will receive no CME. From the intervention and control groups, 460 randomly selected patients with COPD in GOLD stages 2 and 3 will participate, while no patients will be recruited from the reference group. For the patients, smoking status, actual treatment and urgent visits to a health provider due to airway problems will be registered. For the PCPs, professional competence (i.e. knowledge and management skills) in COPD, will be measured using a questionnaire based on current guidelines and guideline implementation problems in clinical practice which has previously been described by the authors. Data will be collected at baseline and at follow-up, which will be after 1.5 years for the patients, and 1 year for the PCPs. Statistical methods for individual-level and cluster-level analyses will be used., Discussion: COPD is considered a particularly complex clinical challenge involving managing multimorbidity, symptom adaptation, and lifestyle problematisation. Case Method in CME for PCPs may contribute to a better understanding of the impact of COPD on patients' lives and, thus, improve their management of it. The present study is expected to contribute scientific knowledge about indicators for an effective CME in COPD that is tailor-made to primary care physicians., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02213809 . Registered on 10 August 2014. Protocol version: Issue date: May 2014.

Background: To overcome the gap between existing knowledge and the application of this knowledge in practice, a three-part continuing educational model for primary health care professionals (ConPrim) was developed. It includes a web-based program, a practical exercise and a case seminar., Aim: To evaluate professionals' perceptions of the design, pedagogy and adaptation to primary health care of the ConPrim continuing educational model as applied in a subject-specific intervention., Methods: A total of 67 professionals (nurses and physicians) completed a computer-based questionnaire evaluating the model's design, pedagogy and adaptation to primary health care one week after the intervention. Descriptive statistics were used., Results: Over 90% found the design of the web-based program and case seminar attractive; 86% found the design of the practical exercise attractive. The professionals agreed that the time spent on two of the three parts was acceptable. The exception was the practical exercise: 32% did not fully agree. Approximately 90% agreed that the contents of all parts were relevant to their work and promoted interactive and interprofessional learning. In response to the statements about the intervention as whole, approximately 90% agreed that the intervention was suitable to primary health care, that it had increased their competence in the subject area, and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their work., Conclusions: ConPrim is a promising model for continuing educational interventions in primary health care. However, the time spent on the practical exercise should be adjusted and the instructions for the exercise clarified. ConPrim should be tested in other subject-specific interventions and its influence on clinical practice should be evaluated., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)