The effect of continuing professional development on public complaints: a case–control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between participation in different types of continuing professional development (CPD), and incidences and types of public complaint against physicians. METHODS: Cases included physicians against whom complaints were made by members of the public to the medical regulatory body in Ontario, Canada, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), during 2008 and 2009. The control cohort included physicians against whom no complaints were documented during the same period. We focused on complaints related to physician communication, quality of care and professionalism. The CPD data included all Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (RCPSC) and College of Family Physicians of Canada (CFPC) CPD programme activities reported by the case and control physicians. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine if the independent variable, reported participation in CPD, was associated with the dependent variable, the complaints-related status of the physician in the year following reported CPD activities. RESULTS: A total of 2792 physicians were included in the study. There was a significant relationship between participation in CPD, type of CPD and type of complaint received. Analysis indicated that physicians who reported overall participation in CPD activities were significantly less likely (odds ratio 0.604; p = 0.028) to receive quality of care-related complaints than those who did not report participating in CPD. Additionally, participation in group-based CPD was less likely (OR 0.681; p = 0.041) to result in quality of care-related complaints. CONCLUSIONS: The findings demonstrate a positive relationship between participation in the national CPD programmes of the CFPC and RCPSC, and lower numbers of public complaints received by the CPSO. As certification bodies and regulators alike are increasingly mandating CPD, they are encouraged to continually evaluate the effectiveness of their programmes to maximise programme impact on physician performance at the population level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".