Modern Pediatrics. Ukraine. 4(108): 7-13. doi 10.15574/SP.2020.108.7
R.V. Marushko
SI «Institute of Pediatrics, Obstetrics and Gynecology named of academician O.M. Lukyanova NAMS of Ukraine», Kyiv

For citation: Marushko RV. (2020). Standards of substantive equivalence between accreditation systems for continuous professional development. Modern Pediatrics. Ukraine. 4(108): 7-13. doi 10.15574/SP.2020.108.7.
Article received: Apr 15, 2020. Accepted for publication: Jun 01, 2020.

The article highlights the report on the implementation of international standards for accreditation of continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CMO/CPD) of health professionals. The initiator is the International Academy of Accreditation for CPD, and the proposed standards have been developed in collaboration with international organizations dealing with accreditation in various countries.
Purpose — to establish areas and criteria of substantive equivalence for recognition in and between CPD accreditation systems. This recognition is intended to assist international accreditation organizations in developing accreditation requirements for the education of physicians and other categories of health professionals, and in identifying leaders involved in creating new and re-building existing CPD accreditation systems by providing guidance on the key components used in their accreditation systems./No conflict of interest were declared by the author.
Key words: accreditation, continuous professional development, educational activity, doctors.

REFERENCES

1. Cervero RM, Gaines JK. (2015). The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: an updated synthesis of systematic reviews. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 35: 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21290; PMid:26115113

2. Humprhey-Murto S, Varpio L, Gonsalves C, Wood TJ. (2016). Using consensus group methods such as Delphi and Nominal Group in medical education research. Medical Teacher. 39 (1): 14–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1245856; PMid:27841062.

3. McMahon GT. (2016). What do I need to learn today? The evolution of CME. N Engl J Med. 374: 1403—1406. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1515202; PMid:27074064

4. McMahon GT, Aboulsoud S, Gordon J, McKenna M, Meuser J, Staz M, Campbell CM. (2016). Evolving Alignment in International Continuing Professional Development Accreditation. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 36 (1): 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000075; PMid:27584065.

5. Mansouri M, Lockyer J. (2007). A meta-analysis of continuing medical education effectiveness. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 27: 6—15. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.88; PMid:17385735

6. The Federation of State Medical Boards. (2014, March 11). FSMB Maintenance of Licensure (MOL) Task Force on Continuous Professional Development (CPD) Activities. URL: https://www.fsmb.org/Media/Default/PDF/FSMB/Foundation/FSMB_MOL_Task_Force_on_CPD_Activities-FINAL_report.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2016.

7. Van de Wiel MW, Van den Bossche P, Janssen S et al. (2011). Exploring deliberatepractice in medicine: how do physicians learn in the workplace? Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 16: 81—95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9246-3; PMid:20848187 PMCid:PMC3074057

8. Varghese J. (2016). Boost for healthcare medical education. Gulf Times. URL: http://www.gulf-times.com/story/483904/Boost-for-healthcare-medical-education.

9. Whitehead TD, Lacey–Haun L. (2008). Evolution of accreditation in continuing nursing education in America. J Contin Educ Nurs. 39: 493-499. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20081101-04; PMid:19024406