Public health physicians' knowledge of core skills and current policy: clinical audit by questionnaire.
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to facilitate the assessment of the knowledge of general public health physicians on a range of topics relating to everyday areas of work and core skills, and to encourage learning in the process, by means of an educational clinical audit exercise.


METHODS
A group of experts in different aspects of public health were asked to contribute multiple-choice questions. These were developed into a questionnaire that could be marked by computer. The questionnaire was circulated to all members of the Faculty registered for Continuing Professional Development (CPD) and to specialist registrar members, but participation was voluntary. The experts marked answers according to a marking scheme against model answers agreed.


RESULTS
A total of 499 public health doctors returned answer sheets. There was no 'pass mark' as this was a learning exercise, not an examination. However, although the negative marking system meant that the possible range of scores was -100 per cent to 100 per cent, no one had a negative score. The median uncorrected result was 44 out of 80. Questions on communicable disease and critical appraisal had the highest scores, and one on Primary Care Trusts the lowest. Participants thought the most interesting questions were those on epidemiology and evidence-based medicine, whereas the most unpopular was on Personal Medical Services pilots. Most comments were favourable to the approach but several commented that the whole exercise was too general and questions outside their current area of specialization were irrelevant.


CONCLUSIONS
The general public health physicians who took part in this audit appeared to be mainly competent in their knowledge of core skills and up to date with current health policy issues. However, the audit raises a debate about what 'core' knowledge is required in the post-training period. The place of UK-wide CPD initiatives over national or regional, or local approaches needs consideration, as do potential regional or national variations in CPD. This will receive further impetus because of revalidation and the need to demonstrate valid CPD activities in public health medicine.
Garvican
L
L
Department of Public Health Sciences, St George's Hospital Medical School, London. l.garvican@sghms.ac.uk
Doyle
Y
Y
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D002983:Clinical Competence / Q000592:standards*; D003154:Community Medicine / Q000193:education* / Q000592:standards*; D003479:Curriculum; D004522:Educational Status; D005180:Faculty, Medical; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D007587:Job Description; D008485:Medical Audit; D008503:Medical Staff / Q000193:education* / Q000523:psychology; D015980:Public Health Practice / Q000592:standards*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D006113:United Kingdom