The Value of CME/CPD in Modern Clinical Practice
Continuing medical education (CME) is a mandatory requirement for healthcare practitioners in the US. As treatment complexity grows and standards of care continue to evolve, CME enables clinicians to stay current with evidence, strengthen clinical judgment, and align care with best practices. It is not a formality—it is a clinical necessity.
CME supports clinicians’ ongoing development of knowledge, skills, and professional behaviors essential for high-quality care in multidisciplinary settings.¹ It extends beyond clinical updates to include communication, leadership, quality improvement, and systems-based practice competencies.¹ While traditionally focused on specialty-specific knowledge, CME increasingly overlaps with continuing professional development (CPD), reflecting the needs of team-based, patient-centered care.¹
In the US, CME remains closely tied to recertification. Although not all 24 medical specialty boards mandate it, recertification is often required by professional societies, insurers, health systems, or group practices. Specialty boards define recertification standards, while accredited providers—including academic institutions, medical societies, and commercial companies—develop and deliver educational content.¹
The Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) oversees quality assurance. It accredits more than 600 organizations.¹ Educational offerings include structured curricula, enduring materials, and live activities designated as AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™—the formal benchmark for CME. In contrast, Category 2 credits reflect informal, self-directed learning such as journal clubs, teaching, and peer consultation. While not accredited, these activities are increasingly recognized for their relevance to adult learning.¹
CME is evolving to reflect the broader goals of continuing professional development—ongoing, practice-based learning that supports clinical improvement across settings. As formats and expectations change, CME must also preserve its independence and ethical foundation to remain a trusted clinician resource.
Trust and Integrity in CME Delivery
Accredited CME must maintain the trust of healthcare professionals, patients, and the public. That trust depends on the assurance that educational content is accurate, evidence-based, and free from commercial influence. While collaboration between healthcare professionals and industry can drive clinical innovation, the learning environment must remain independent to protect against marketing-driven bias.²
Because clinicians are legally and ethically responsible for prescribing, device use, and patient counseling, CME must reinforce professional autonomy through content that reflects scientific integrity and current standards of care. This commitment to unbiased education differentiates accredited CME from promotional materials designed to influence clinical behavior.²
A scoping review of 60 studies identified key factors driving the need for CME/CPD, including self-awareness of knowledge gaps, evolving clinical experience, and job satisfaction.³ Barriers such as limited institutional support, financial constraints, and a disconnect between training and practice reflect the necessity of structured CPD to maintain competence across career stages.³ The findings support targeted interventions that bridge education and practice to improve workforce development and care quality.³
Yet, the majority of CPD programs fail to evaluate educational effectiveness. A 2023 scoping review found that 90% of CPD initiatives lacked a formal evaluation framework and failed to assess how or why learning translated into clinical practice.⁴ This limits program refinement, obscures impact, and weakens the evidence base needed to inform future CPD strategies.
A closer look at the evidence base reveals critical gaps in evaluation methodology. Most CPD studies originated in the US (42%) and were conducted in a hospital (47%) or community (27%) setting. The primary target audience was general practitioners (38%), followed by surgeons (16%) and mixed-specialty cohorts (14%)—two-thirds of studies used pre–post designs, while only 4% employed randomized controlled trials. Nearly 60% relied on unvalidated surveys as their primary outcome measure, and just 11% used validated tools. Only 13% of studies used qualitative methods, and fewer than 7% included knowledge-based assessments or focus groups. Most notably, 90% of studies failed to use any formal evaluation framework, and among the few that did, the Kirkpatrick model was most common.⁴
These findings reflect the urgent need for more rigorous, theory-driven evaluations of CME programs. High-quality content must be designed for accreditation, real-world clinical relevance, measurable outcomes, and sustained behavior change.
As continuing education shifts toward virtual, interdisciplinary, and outcomes-based models, CME providers face increasing pressure to demonstrate the value and impact of their offerings. Investing in content grounded in program theory, evaluation science, and adult learning principles ensures that education remains a driver of clinical improvement, not just a regulatory obligation.
Evolving Delivery Models and Future Directions
CME delivery is rapidly evolving to meet the demands of a distributed, time-constrained workforce. Traditional in-person workshops and retreats have been largely replaced or complemented by flexible, technology-enabled formats. Livestreams now provide real-time education on critical public health issues.
Enduring materials and mobile platforms offer 24/7 access to accredited content, while podcasts, simulation labs, gamified activities, and hybrid events are expanding the definition of learner engagement.
Post-pandemic trends show a clear preference for digital-first formats, driven by both convenience and necessity. Legislative mandates, such as Indiana’s SEA225, have further shaped content strategy by requiring targeted educational interventions, including opioid-specific training. The trajectory is clear: CME is becoming more mobile, modular, and personalized, designed to meet learners where they are and support sustained practice change.⁵
Conclusion
As the healthcare landscape evolves, so must the systems supporting clinical excellence. CME and CPD are no longer peripheral obligations—they are central to sustaining competence, advancing care quality, and supporting system-wide transformation. For these programs to remain credible and impactful, they must be grounded in independent, evidence-based content, rigorously evaluated, and tailored to the needs of a dynamic, multidisciplinary workforce. When designed with these principles in mind, continuing education becomes not just a requirement but a catalyst for measurable improvement in patient outcomes and provider performance.
References
1. Peck C, McCall M, McLaren B, Rotem T. Continuing medical education and continuing professional development: international comparisons. BMJ. 2000;320(7232):432–435. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7232.432
2. McMahon GT. Changes to the Standards for Integrity and Independence in Continuing Medical Education. JAMA. 2021;325(21):2129–2130. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.4411
3. Hakvoort L, Vance C, Ghosh S, Lalonde M. Factors that influencecontinuing professional development over a nursing career: a scoping review. Nurse Educ Today. 2022;113:105387. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2022.105387
4. Hosseini S, Allen L, Khalid F, et al. Evaluation ofcontinuing professional development for physicians—Time for change: A scoping review. Perspect Med Educ. 2023;12(1):198–207.
5. Stearley K. What does the future of CME look like? MedEd Update. 2024. https://accme.org/resource/jama-article-changes-to-the-standards-for-integrity-and-independence-in-continuing-medical-education/
