gms | German Medical Science

Question/objectives: Training programmes for continuing professional development (CPD) are often implemented based on the perceived needs of experts [1], without support of conceptual frameworks [2]. Needs assessment is broadly under-used and under-reported in training programme planning. The significance of needs assessment is to avoid expensive design that fails to meet needs of healthcare professionals. With the intention of implementing a blended training for frontline healthcare professionals in Precision Medicine (PM) across Switzerland, we use a mixed methods model in two parts: part 1 focus groups (FGs) and part 2 survey, each method guiding consecutive next steps. We target nurses, pharmacists and general practitioners. This abstract presents the results of part 1 A focus group study.

Methods: We conducted 2 FGs (n=12) equally representing the professional groups in Lausanne and Bern, in French and German respectively. To assess acceptability, we used Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation. This framework offers an overview of expectations from a training programme, an appropriate fit to our investigative needs. The process helped us to identify 4 key themes (see figure 1 [Fig. 1]). Based on a first validation, the project team refined key questions during preparation. FGs were audio-recorded, transcribed by intelligent verbatim and translated to English for analysis. NVivo was used for the data analysis and interpretation followed the Framework Method.

Results: Not only is PM a new topic, it is largely unfamiliar to our participants. Key findings conclude that

1.

there is no common understanding of PM, but acceptance was reached on a proposed definition,

2.

there is wide acceptance of a more precision approach to care, with perceived positive implications in practice,

3.

valuable insight was offered on a proposed list of learning objectives guiding key questions for a part 2 survey and

4.

all participants shared concerns on readiness within their professions.

Additional raised points include insufficient system infrastructure and supporting network of experts, a lack of time to attend training, and a lack of clarity for use in practice. Additional themes emerged including cost-benefit analysis, practical challenges for implementation, and certification for learning.

Conclusion: We conclude that our target audience is unfamiliar and currently not prepared to bring a more precision approach to patients.

Take home messages: PM is perceived as important to the future delivery of patient care. To build an acceptable national training programme, initiatives including targeted communications, a network of experts and quality information about PM, and the infrastructure to reinforce implementation in clinical practice may ensure delivery of practical training with real and significant impact on patients.