Winter 1992, Volume 17, Number 2 - Association of Schools and ...

Continuing
Education Needs of
Ohio Optometrists
A Comparison with Other
Health Care Providers
Alan Escovitz, Ph.D.
Arol Augsburger, O.D., M.S.
Abstract
An intenlisciplimry survey of
777/> Ohio health care provider* in
five different disciplines including
optometry is ilescribed. Key issues for
planning continuing education programs
uvre surveyed and arc reported.
These results provide a framework
for program development and
design of individual and interdisciplinary
continuing professional educational
experiences in the health sciences.
The study slunocd that program
content, date, lime and location
are the most important factors influencing
program attendance. General
optometric educators will he interested
in the comparisons of opinions
of optometrists and other health
care providers toward continuing
education.
Key Words
Continuing Education, Interdisciplinary,
Needs Assessment,
Planning
Introduction
The profession of optometry has
been a leader in the movement to formalize
continuing education through
mandatory participation related to
license renewal. The assumption has
been that through this vehicle, practitioners
can keep abreast of scientific,
technological, clinical patient care,
and social changes affecting their
practices, and can actively participate
in these changes. The argument for
this worthwhile purpose has been so
persuasive that virtually all states
have enacted mandatory continuing
education requirements. In Ohio, the
State Board of Optometry has required
continuing education for
nearly twenty years. Optometry was
Dr. Escovitz is executive director of the Council of
Ohio Colleges of Pharmacy, the educational
consortium of four Ohio pharmacy colleges, and
director of the Center for Continuing Health Science
Education at The Ohio State University.
Dr. Augsburger is a professor of clinical optometry
and chairman of the continuing education committee
at The Ohio State University College of Optometry.
the first licensed health care professional
group in the state to actively
lobby for mandatory continuing education
legislation.
After twenty years a further evaluation
of the perception of optometrists
with regard to continuing education
would be timely. Do optometrists
(or other health providers)
choose to take continuing education
because it is mandated? Do other
factors enter into the decision to take
continuing education? Is optometry
more or less similar to other health
professions in regard to opinions
about continuing education? Are
providers of continuing education
addressing the perceived needs of
optometrists? What changes could be
made to offer even better continuing
education to optometrists? The
assessment of continuing education
needs for individual health professions
has been previously reported 1 - 2
but interdisciplinary assessment of
continuing education has rarely been
addressed. 34 - 5
To answer these questions a project
was designed by the Advisory Committee
for the Center for Continuing
Health Sciences Education at the
Ohio State University. Included in
this committee were representatives
from the College of Optometry, College
of Pharmacy, College of Medicine,
College of Nursing, Department
of Nursing Staff Development OSU
Hospitals, and the School of Allied
Medicine. Specifically the project was
designed to:
1) identify the demographic characteristics
of five health care groups
(optometrists, physicians, pharmacists,
nurses, and allied medicine personnel).
2) define the past participation in
continuing education.
3) assess the preferred formats for
obtaining continuing education.
4) survey opinions related to current
professional issues.
Methods
The survey questionnaire designed
by the Advisory Committee for the
Center for Continuing Health Sciences
Education was mailed to a
random sample of 4692 Ohio health
providers in the summer of 1989. The
four page survey instrument is appended
to this study. Table 1 summarizes
the distribution of the 4692
surveys which were mailed and the
percent returned for each professional
group. Optometrists displayed
Volume 17, Number 2 I Winter 1991 41