Funding for continuing medical education

I am writing on behalf of the continuing medical education and continuing professional development offices at the 17 Canadian medical schools. For many years, we have had the same concerns as those expressed by Paul Hébert and the Editorial-Writing Team in a recent CMAJ editorial,1 and we have worked diligently to provide high-quality continuing education programs with minimal bias. We are actively engaged in research to determine the most effective methods to provide continuing medical education and continuing professional development and to measure and minimize bias.

Many of the programs outlined in the editorial, such as academic detailing, small group workshops and audit feedback, have been developed in Canadian medical schools and are currently part of our curriculum. We have also developed programs in multisource feedback and innovative approaches to increase access to educational programs, such as videoconferencing, podcasts and e-learning. All of the activities outlined in Box 1 of the editorial by Hébert for the proposed Institute of Continuing Health Education are currently underway at our offices. In the last few years, most of the continuing medical education offices at Canadian medical schools have also begun to develop interprofessional continuing education with local and national partners.

Each of the offices participates in a national accreditation system. The standards to which we are mutually held reflect the issues that were thoughtfully enunciated in the editorial.

In Canada, funding from the pharmaceutical industry is currently part of our revenue stream, but it is strictly controlled and represents an ever-decreasing percentage of total funding (it ranges from 5% to 50% of total funding and is in the 5%–20% range for most of our continuing medical education offices). Funding from faculties of medicine generally accounts for about 10% of the revenue. The remainder comes from program fees, contracts with governmental and nongovernmental agencies and research grants.

In conclusion, we already have in place institutions similar to the proposed Institute of Continuing Health Education. We call upon funders of the health care and education systems to place the same importance on funding for continuing health education as they do on funding for undergraduate and postgraduate health education.