Last year I attended an early evening webinar on myopia. Not an easy time for me – like many I have young children and most Continuing Professional Development (CPD) seems to be during the bedtime routine. This one sounded too good to miss – a session about improving your communication and decision-making.  So, I organised childcare (on a school night!) and at 7pm I was ready with my notebook and pen.

About twenty minutes in, I was checking the session details on my phone because it really wasn’t what I expected. The discussion was about beginning to offer myopia management; the description suggested otherwise.

I stayed online until the end, but when it came to filling in my reflection statement, I struggled – what did I learn, how would I use this in practice, how would it help patients – I couldn’t answer any of those questions. In the end, I didn’t log the session on myGOC.  

That was a precious hour of time lost, and in my frustration it would be easy to say this was a bad session, but it wasn’t – for someone at the start of their myopia management journey in practice, it would have been very useful; for someone already experienced, it didn’t offer any new information or perspectives.This experience may be familiar. I’m sure many have attended sessions that sounded great on paper but didn’t quite meet expectations – it’s not always the content, sometimes the format is different, especially when it’s a workshop. And this is why I believe that changes are needed to the way CPD is advertised – we need descriptions that help us judge not only whether a topic is relevant, but whether the level, format, and intended outcome are right too.

The current system requires providers to upload specific information about the session to the provider portal. These include session format, description, target audience, domains, learning objectives, and points. That information is supposed to help us decide if the session is relevant to what we believe our areas of development are, based on our Professional Development Plan (PDP).

Unfortunately, this information is often not enough.

To demonstrate this point, I’ve drafted two different ‘advertisements’ for the same CPD session on progressive lenses. The first is a simple, generic version while the second is more specific about what the session involves and who might benefit from attending.

Version 1  

Description:
This lecture explores the changing visual needs of presbyopic patients and how progressive lens recommendations may need to adapt as the patient’s near addition increases. Using case-based examples, the session will consider how different lens design approaches can support wearer comfort, adaptation and visual performance at different stages of the presbyopic journey.

Target Professional Groups: Optometrists, dispensing opticians

Version 2  

Description:
As a patient’s near addition increases, progressive lens designs behave differently. That can create problems in everyday wear, even for experienced wearers.Using case examples to demonstrate theory, this lecture shows practitioners how to assess the progressive lens designs available to them and decide which designs are most appropriate for new and existing wearers. Moving beyond the usual “premium versus standard” conversation, the session focuses on how prescription, add power and visual demand should influence recommendation – whether the decision starts in the test room or at the dispense desk.

Suitable for: Dispensing opticians and optometrists who regularly recommend, fit or troubleshoot progressive lenses.

Also useful for: Practitioners working with a limited range of lens options who want a more practical way to match design choice to wearer need.

Learning level: Intermediate

Probably less suited to: Practitioners looking for an introduction to progressive lenses, or those with advanced knowledge of progressive lens design theory.

The second version clearly states what the session is about, what attendees will learn, and who will benefit from attending. A small amount of extra information and we can instantly see if this is a session worth committing our time to – and if it’s one that could impact on what we do in practice the next day.

If the myopia session I attended included this information, it’s likely I wouldn’t have attended – but I would have recommended it to others who at that point were struggling with the basics of myopia management.

Nobody wants to attend CPD and feel like it’s a waste of time, and no CPD presenter wants to feel their audience is disengaged; it’s worth considering if minor changes like this could make the world of difference to both.  

Better signposting would not solve every problem in CPD, but it would help us choose more appropriately, protect our time, and make it more likely that education reaches the people it was designed for. If we are to take CPD seriously, CPD needs to take our time, experience, and learning stage seriously too.