If you were asked what CPD was, what would your answer be? I’m sure everyone could decipher the acronym to answer continuing professional development, but what does that mean? Is it something the General Dental Council requires for
continued registration, or is it part of life-long learning and progression of professional knowledge and skills for the benefit and safety of patients? It should be both, but in practice it can be just one.
If you were offered the opportunity to participate in a course or seminar that would progress you professionally, but would not be officially included as CPD would you attend? I would imagine/hope that many still would, as the clinical benefits on offer would alone be enough to motivate you. Would the same apply to your nurses’ CPD? Would you encourage them to take time away from the office and attend a course that did not count towards their official CPD, or is the ability to tick the box of CPD hours completed more of a motivating factor for them?
Equally if you were offered the chance of CPD hours for attending a course that did not benefit you professionally, would you attend? I’m sure the need to log hours has meant that most dentists have at least on one occasion come away with a certificate in hand despite having no professional development whatsoever. This is probably even more true for the practice team; the rush on DCP CPD hours at the end of the first five year cycle means that almost inevitably the quality of the CPD on offer was a secondary consideration as the need to have hours logged (and so keep GDC registration) became the over-riding priority.
Within dentistry the UDA system adopted by the NHS has been the subject of heavy criticism, it has been described as a treadmill, and inflexible as it fails to appreciate the difference between quality and quantity. Could the GDC’s current CPD requirements be guilty of the same thing?
The GDC does not recommend specific providers or courses, and makes no distinction about the type of CPD provided other than the hours gained. I believe this is a fundamental flaw, and has led to a warping of the values and understanding of the
entire idea of continuing professional development.
At dental school students are taught by teachers and professors, the leading lights of the academic world, they follow a curriculum which schools them in dentistry with a strong evidence base behind it. Yet CPD can be provided by individuals unqualified in dentistry, from commercial companies, with apparently no standards to adhere to. This cannot be right.
Quality
Of course not all CPD is of poor quality. There are a number of good providers out there that are able to give dentists the tick box of hours whilst actually providing professional development. Dental Update and The BDJ are both examples of quality journals that have excellent standards – offering peer reviewed articles that deliver genuine CPD as any layman would understand the term. Unfortunately there are a number of providers out there that are allowed to give CPD hours without offering the same quality. Now obviously as publisher of Dental Update I have a vested interest in stressing the importance of quality CPD, but dentists have a vested interest in their own development too.
If we ignore the importance of quality in CPD and reduce it all to a simple numbers game of hours then the risk of judging the provision by cost alone increases. There are a number of websites, publishers and event organisers that offer an abundance of CPD hours that are not properly regulated and can offer hours cheaply. This is not good for the providers of genuine CPD, the dental profession or ultimately the public. If dentists gain the required hours without actually learning and progressing they are missing out, and ultimately their patients suffer by not getting the latest and best dentistry available.
When is CPD not CPD?
As regulator of the dental profession I believe the GDC should be involved in CPD. In its consultation on the subject earlier this year it stated it had “heard clear concerns about perceptions of some poor or variable quality CPD… This includes where assessment is perceived to lack rigor; where CPD is not perceived to provide value for money; and where the learning content is perceived to lack accuracy or reliability”. A problem certainly exists then. So how do you know what is genuine CPD and what is not? The GDC states “Registrants should use their professional judgement to decide whether or not they believe the CPD activity they have done meets our requirements for CPD.” So it’s up to you to judge… and you can only do this after the event.
Does this mean you invest time and money on a course/ event/journal only to at the end find you are unable to log the CPD hours? If there is a pressure to fulfil the quota of hours to retain registration is it likely that someone will reject their CPD certificate? I am sceptical. If you feel a provider does not meet the standards you expect, the GDC recommends you talk to that provider about your concerns. Again, is this a realistic and practical way to deal with the problem the GDC knows exists?
However unsatisfactory it all is, it is the current reality of the situation within dentistry. I firmly believe quality does matter, in CPD just as within dentistry itself, so be sure to assess the activity to ensure that the providers are up to scratch. I would urge you always spell out the acronym, and make sure you and your team are getting genuine continual professional development, and not just ticking the box for CPD.