What is an Educational Problem Revisited.
In recent editorials, I have expounded the goal of developing an integrated continuing professional development (CPD) intervention that lies at the heart of JCEHP's mission statement. In this editorial, I would like to stress that this integrated CPD intervention approach, underpinned by the CPD imagination,mayde center the raisond'etre of continuing education as the primary focus of JCEHP, but it does not diminish its importance in CPD and to the journal. CPD practitioners should retain educational principles, questions, evidence, intervention designs, and evaluations, as key elements in any integrated CPD intervention. Indeed, I would argue that the design and practice of successful CPD interventions requires CPD practitioners and researchers to be more vigilant in regards to the robustness and rigor of their choices in the design of the educational components of CPD interventions. In particular, the way in which the educational issue itself is articulated and complements other educational intervention design elements, ie, quality improvement measures, implementation science gap analyses, patient safety objectives, and faculty development needs. As such, I believe it is the right time to lift Professor Olson's seminal article, "What is an Educational Problem: Guidance for Authors Submitting to JCEHP" from the archives and reprint it here in Issue 4, 2019. The strength and contemporary relevance of the article speaks for itself. However, I would like to draw attention to the core aspect of Professor Olson's work where he eloquently outlines two distinct types of educational problems/issues. I refer to them here as type 1 and type 2 problems: Type 1) clinical educational problems that contribute to a performance gap, that is, "an educational problem exists when a health care professional lacks the knowledge, skills, andattitudes necessary for the desired performance," and Type 2) "a gap in educational theory, knowledge, or practice that hinders our efforts asCPDprofessionals to dowhatwe are trying to do." p.1 The contents of Issue 4 cover both types of educational issues. In terms of type 1 educational problems (clinical educational issues) Pooley et al evaluate a technology enhanced implementation of multisource feedback among Australian physicians. Sockalingam et al introduce us to a research protocol that explores the factors influencing physician engagementwith practice data to improve competence and effect practice change. Corder Mabe et al present evidence from a rapid review and identify community health worker roles, responsibilities, behaviors, and competencies (which also play into a type 2 educational problem) Broadly speaking, all three papers are focused on clinical educational problems, while simultaneously directly and indirectly engaging with implementation science, quality improvement, patient safety, and faculty development issues. These articles represent a blending of JCEHP's previous focus on clinical educational problems while actively engaging with the broader mission statement and definition of CPD, recently adopted by JCEHP. In terms of type 2 educational problems (a gap in educational theory, knowledge, and practice that hinder CPD practitioners) Hearle and Lawson explore the "wicked problem" of defining engagement as it pertains to CPD, and the resultant effects it may have on the nature of engagement in practice and its impact. Abdellatif et al present a fascinating and troubling faculty leadership and development analysis relating to gender (dis)parities in research intensive medical schools across Asia, North America, Oceania and Europe. Reedy and Bearman provide a compelling proposal onhow to chart the relationships between various social identities that constitute the complexity of contemporary clinical education, patients clinicians, trainees trainers, classrooms clinics, uniprofessional, interprofessional, local global, and teachers clinicians. It is an impressive form of ontological choreography that raises our awareness of the increasing complexity of faculty development as a practice and the challenges it poses for the design of faculty development, programming and scholarship. Finally, Whitehurst et al reflect on local partnership model solutions to another "wicked problem," specifically, how to articulate the complementary threads of accreditation requirements, expertise, resources, and scholarly activities [to] provide an opportunity for GME and CME to operate in a more integrated and coordinated fashion. All these papers make an attempt to grapplewith educational theory, knowledge, and practice gaps, and represent JCEHP's commitment to continuing education issues within contemporary integrated CPD interventions. In conclusion, I would refer JCEHP authors to Professor Olson's four most pertinent and useful points outlined at the end of his article. The only addition I would make to Professor Olson's suggestions relates to the framing, explanation of the significance, and the discussion of the educational problem. Regardless of whether the substance of a JCEHP article is of a type 1 or type 2 nature, the authors should strive wherever possible to articulate their work to our expanded definition of CPD and the JCEHP mission statement.
The Journal of continuing education in the health professions