CURRENT ISSUE
BACK ISSUES
SUBSCRIBE
ADVERTISE
ABOUT JCEHP
FOR AUTHORS
JCEHP AWARD
SEARCH
|
|
Volume 15 (2)
Volume 15, Issue 2, June 1995
J Contin Educ Health Prof 1995; 15(2):70-79
THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
Evolution of Planning in CME
Nancy L. Bennett, PhD
Linda L. Casebeer, PhD
A b s t r a c t
Continuing medical education (CME) planners are faced with new challenges in
creating a learning climate to address the needs of five groups of stakeholders: learners, teachers,
planners, the institution, and the public. One way to look at planning is through its evolution
in four stages: traditional planning, planning for measurable behaviors, planning for individualized
learning, and planning within a learning system. Traditional planners used an
expert as teacher to screen content and determine the relative importance of information within
the field. Information was transferred to learning and they were expected to determine its use
in practice. Planners working toward measurable behaviors moved the balance among the
stakeholders to provide a more explicit role for learners with behavioral objectives or goal
statements so that learning could be measured. However, planners were still concerned with
groups of people. The climate of health care reform has been the impetus to move to a system
that better accounts for the needs and learning processes of individuals by planning for individualized
learning. Currently, we are moving further forward to look at a system that places
individuals within the context of their own institution. Individual needs are based on data from
the system; fulfillment of those needs is demonstrated by changes in the data. Conflicts arise
in shifting the institutional mission from CME as simple numbers - number of programs,
number of participants, number of hours - to CME that places value on how individuals change
within the institution in ways that further the institution’s mission.
Keywords: Adult education/learning; learning practices; organization of CME; planning for CME; program design
|