‘Does it Do What It Says on the Tin?'
I learned this expression while working in England. It was a way of getting to the core of something, often a product, to determine the original intent and whether it was accomplished. I wonder that about continuing education requirements. Florida has had them (12 hours/year) since I've been practicing (a long time) while New York has only recently adopted them (same 12 hours/year).
Why have these requirements that we go and study for half of one day a year? What is the original intent behind them? From my public health perspective, I see it as ensuring patients are cared for by professionals, with the latest knowledge. From my professional perspective, I see it as a way to stimulate thought and encourage continued professional development. From my cynical perspective, I see it as another bureaucratic encumbrance where course developers have a captive clientele from which to make money.
What do you think? Have the states accomplished something worthwhile or simply created a burden for professionals? After all, wouldn't any professional naturally stay on top of his game with continuing growth? Wouldn't the free market weed out anyone who wasn't keeping up?
Is this the best way to credit us with compliance? My ADVANCE colleague, Lisa Mueller, writes often about her journal club activities. Shouldn't this count toward her continuing development? What about colleagues involved in research, shouldn't that count as well? Most times it doesn't.
Does your state offer alternatives to attending in person or online courses? Do you think it's a justifiable way of demonstrating continuing growth? It is in the UK. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapists expects its members to spend three to six hours a month on development, including things like journal clubs and research. Those activities are documented and kept in a portfolio, which needs to be presented on demand.
What would you choose?