It is hard to know whether European CME is in robust good health or is in need of remedial treatment. But it is a hot topic and both deserves and needs a platform where it can exhibit its achievements and discuss its problems. The Journal of European CME has been established to provide this platform and is looking for original articles, commentaries and opinions from learners, providers, accreditors and regulatory authorities.
European CME recently has been in the news. The fourth annual European CME Forum was held in Amsterdam in November last year and a week later the first CME-CPD conference organized by UEMS-EACCME was held in Brussels. The Amsterdam meeting was broadly based and discussed educational theory and practice, examples of CME interventions in healthcare, accreditation and also included views from the European scientific societies and medical communications companies representing providers of CME in Europe. The UEMS-EACCME meeting in Brussels focused on accreditation of e-learning and live events following publication by the UEMS-EACCME of its papers on e-learning accreditation in 2009 and on live events last year. Americans attended both meetings allowing comparison of the different systems on both sides of the Atlantic.
The development of CME and its accreditation in North America has a longer history than in Europe, and we have benefited from their experience. In some ways, we have followed their initiatives, particularly in needs assessment, outcome measures and the avoidance of commercial bias. In accreditation, we have trod a different path, and Europe has continued with activity or event accreditation whereas the North Americans accredit individual providers of specialist CME rather than individual activities.
European CME is still a developing child, beyond infancy but not yet fully grown up. The doctors/learners are not yet fully engaged. There is little meaningful dialogue between the learners and the providers both of whom should be communicating about practice gaps and the best ways to fill them. Providers, particularly the scientific societies, still rely too much on didactic, lecture-based education and pay scant attention to whether their educational material influences medical practice. The concept of performance improvement CME is being examined in North America but not yet in Europe. The question of whether accreditation ‘works’ and serves a useful function remains tantalizingly unanswered. It is humbling and salutary to reflect that perhaps the most effective and enjoyable CME happens when a small group of doctors get together every week for a multidisciplinary (unaccredited) clinical meeting.
I hope that the Journal of European CME will play an important part in helping European CME to grow up to be a healthy and vigorous adult. Those involved in European CME should consider the journal as their mouthpiece or the stage on which their concerns can be voiced and debated. A new journal is a tender flower that needs care and attention if it is to survive and fulfil its mission. As Editor-in-Chief, I make a plea to everyone who has an interest in European CME to support and contribute to our exciting new venture.