I was recently at a social event at which one of my colleagues threatened to “go postal” if he had to rejoin the College of Family Physicians (CFPC) to comply with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia (CPSBC) directive that all physicians had to be enrolled in a CME program of either the CFPC or the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada by 2010. Like many physicians, he had let his CFPC membership lapse.
When I enquired about the unfamiliar term “going postal,” which I assumed to mean a letter-writing campaign, I found that the term related to a postal worker having gone berserk at work, obviously reflecting deeper emotions than would normally be seen in a letter-writing campaign.
The real issue, of course, has little to do with disaffected physicians who are not members of either of the two national colleges that accredit and set standards for physicians’ continuing professional development. The real issue is this: why is the CPSBC imposing yet another obligation and expense on those of us who are not members of either of the two national colleges? The answer lies in two recent legislative changes.
The first change was bringing the CPSBC under the Health Professions Act in June 2009, by which we are now governed. The act mandates that the College “establish and maintain a continuing competency program to promote high practice standards amongst registrants.” The College Bylaws now include a requirement to comply with “mandatory continuing professional development requirements and any other requirements for revalidation of licensure.”
The second change is that under the recent amendments to the Agreement on Internal Trade, fully licensed physicians will have unrestricted mobility throughout Canada. For this to occur, each province must assure the competency of its practitioners using substantially equivalent criteria.
The privilege of self-governance has a price. Increasingly, government demands for more transparent and demonstrable physician competency assurance, known as revalidation, have been a common theme in almost all Western hemisphere health care legislative reforms. However, what constitutes a robust revalidation process that assures currency and competence of medical practice is very much in dispute.
For example, self-evaluation without audit lacks reliability—physicians who have shifted to the left of the bell curve of competency and currency in practice are often in denial. Recertification examinations, usually done on a 10-year cycle, test knowledge that is only a fraction of the competency required of a medical expert according to the Royal College CanMEDS Physician Competency Framework.
Alberta and Nova Scotia physicians are mandated to participate in the Physician Achievement Review Program. In this program, physician performance is reviewed every 5 years by reviewing completed questionnaires from 25 patients, 8 physician colleagues, and 8 nonphysician health care workers.
Getting back to my friend who is about to go postal, I would suggest that participation in a mandatory CME program is probably the least onerous first step in revalidation and, interestingly, is something that most of the public believes has always been obligatory for physicians.
So why have these two national colleges been appointed as the official CME clearinghouses? These colleges, not the regulatory authorities, have the mandate and expertise to accredit and review educational resources and established databases for monitoring the activities of their members and subscribers. Their fees are admittedly substantial. The CPSBC has explored alternatives and concluded that the service cannot reasonably be provided for less.
What is the likely direction of physician revalidation in British Columbia? Who knows? At present, mandating periodic examination rewrites do not appear to be in the cards. Stay posted (but don’t go postal).
Above is the information needed to cite this article in your paper or presentation. The International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommends the following citation style, which is the now nearly universally
accepted citation style for scientific papers:
Halpern SD, Ubel PA, Caplan AL, Marion DW, Palmer AM, Schiding JK, et al. Solid-organ transplantation in HIV-infected patients. N Engl J Med. 2002;347:284-7.
About the ICMJE and citation styles
The ICMJE is small group of editors of general medical journals who first met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1978 to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which meets annually. The ICMJE created the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals to help authors and editors create and distribute accurate, clear, easily accessible reports of biomedical studies.
An alternate version of ICMJE style is to additionally list the month an issue number, but since most journals use continuous pagination, the shorter form provides sufficient information to locate the reference. The NLM now lists all authors.
BCMJ standard citation style is a slight modification of the ICMJE/NLM style, as follows:
- Only the first three authors are listed, followed by "et al."
- There is no period after the journal name.
- Page numbers are not abbreviated.
For more information on the ICMJE Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals, visit www.icmje.org