PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15267165

Continuing professional development: does it make a difference?

Abstract

Continuing professional development (CPD) is costly in terms of both organizational resources and personal time and effort. It forms an important part of the strategy for modernizing the health service and is an expectation of qualified nurses. There is little evidence to demonstrate the impact of CPD in terms of improved patient care and services. A small pilot study was undertaken. A group of intensive therapy unit (ITU) managers developed a goal attainment scale (GAS) to evaluate the impact of an ITU course. Results suggest that the ITU course did make a difference to the development of ITU nurses, but the nurses who did not take the course also developed. This has implications for service providers and educationalists in terms of expectations, timing and content of courses. The GAS was a useful tool as an approach to evaluating the impact of CPD but requires more rigorous testing before it can be described as reliable and valid.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shirley Tennant, Ray Field. Continuing professional development: does it make a difference?. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1362-1017.2004.00071.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Causes of a prolonged prehospital phase in patients admitted to a stroke unit. Can it be influenced by campaigns to educate the public?].

Since stroke has become a medical emergency because intravenous tissue plasminogen activator improves outcome after ischemic stroke within 3 h of symptom onset, the focus of acute stroke management lies on the prehospital phase. Having the worst median time of emergency department arrival after stroke onset according to nationwide statistics, we examined the factors influencing a late admission of 174 consecutive patients to our stroke unit and the effects of a public campaign over 5 months. The median time from symptom onset to arrival was 5.2 h; 36.4% of patients presented within 3 h at hospital. A high level of education, knowledge of the time window, direct contact with an emergency facility after stroke onset, high number of known symptoms, not living alone, and a stroke in the past were connected with an earlier presentation. The public campaign had a positive effect on median time of symptom onset to arrival from 12 h in July, 7.2 in August, 4.7 in October, 5.2 in November, and 3.2 in December 2002. This had a favorable effect on the number of thrombolysis.

Critical Care↗