L. Garvican et Y. Doyle, Public health physicians' knowledge of core skills and current policy: clinical audit by questionnaire, J PUBL H M, 23(2), 2001, pp. 135-140
Citations number
8
Categorie Soggetti
Public Health & Health Care Science","Envirnomentale Medicine & Public Health
Background The aim of this study was to facilitate the assessment of the kn
owledge of general public health physicians on a range of topics relating t
o everyday areas of work and core skills, and to encourage learning in the
process, by means of an educational clinical audit exercise.
Methods A group of experts in different aspects of public health were asked
to contribute multiple-choice questions. These were developed into a quest
ionnaire that could be marked by computer. The questionnaire was circulated
to all members of the Faculty registered for Continuing Professional Devel
opment (CPD) and to specialist registrar members, but participation was vol
untary. The experts marked answers according to a marking scheme against mo
del answers ag reed.
Results A total of 499 public health doctors returned answer sheets. There
was no 'pass mark' as this was a learning exercise, not an examination. How
ever, although the negative marking system meant that the possible range of
scores was -100 per cent to 100 per cent, no one had a negative score. The
median uncorrected result was 44 out of 80. Questions on communicable dise
ase and critical appraisal had the highest scores, and one on Primary Care
Trusts the lowest. Participants thought the most interesting questions were
those on epidemiology and evidence-based medicine, whereas the most unpopu
lar was on Personal Medical Services pilots. Most comments were favourable
to the approach but several commented that the whole exercise was too gener
al and questions outside their current area of specialization were irreleva
nt.
Conclusion The general public health physicians who took part in this audit
appeared to be mainly competent in their knowledge of core skills and up t
o date with current health policy issues. However, the audit raises a debat
e about what 'core' knowledge is required in the post-training period. The
place of UK-wide CPD initiatives over national or regional, or local approa
ches needs consideration, as do potential regional or national variations i
n CPD, This will receive further impetus because of revalidation and the ne
ed to demonstrate valid CPD activities in public health medicine.