Two responses. First, CME is criticized as being largely influenced by industry rather than primarily intended to advance medical learning. [1]
Second, assuming medical continuing education is something like 20 to 40 hours depending on the region [2], this feels meager and insufficient. In contrast, think of how much learning a software developer does during a year -- perhaps close to 5+ hours per week on average! [3] Very different contexts, very different incentives.
[2]: Based on very quick research: could be off -- corrections are welcome
[3]: There are many differences, of course. Just to pick one example: to what degree does a software developer's continuing exploration into an area (such as a specific business process that their application needs to understand) help their craft? Does it improve their skill level? Does it result in transferable skills? Does it improve the quality of their work?
Software developer doesn't hold a certification from a trade group that has a government violence backed monopoly on deciding who can make a buck performing said craft.
Ok, but you are moving the goalposts relative to my original quote: “Their daily practice leaves little time or incentive for keeping up with studies.” My first point is that software developers (generally, more often than not) have the time and incentive to learn on an ongoing basis.
Second point: if continuing education has to be mandated, it is likely a symptom of a system that lacks proper incentives.
On the positive side, as more patients educate themselves and press doctors for statistical understanding and synthesis across studies, “Dr. Expert’s” stale knowledge will no longer fly.
> if continuing education has to be mandated, it is likely a symptom of a system that lacks proper incentives
I’m a pilot and work in finance. They both have continuing-education requirements. The ones in the former are practical and helpful. The ones in the latter are mostly performative. (In some cases, arguably counterproductive.) The existence of continuing-education mandates per se tells you almost nothing about the system as a whole.
Point taken. Interesting example. Do you have some theories about why continuing education requirements are so different in aviation compared with finance? Some factors might include: individual skin in the game, observability, feasibility, and the temporal and causal distance from action to consequences.
> Do you have some theories about why continuing education requirements are so different in aviation compared with finance?
Culture of professionalism. That’s kind of a bullshit answer, but it’s the closest phrase I can come to that encapsulates pilots taking the rules seriously, both because they’re there for a good reason and the FAA isn’t afraid to yank your wings, but also because the FAA isn’t usually making rules to seem tough on pilots or otherwise infantilise them, it’s following an evidence-based approach that’s explicitly endorsed by pilots. (After a crash, you aren’t trying to find who to blame. You’re trying to prevent the next crash.)
Mandated continuing education isn't a sign of missing incentives, it is the incentive. Being required to do something to keep working in the field seems like a pretty strong incentive to me.
But I certainly won't dispute that doctors in most systems in the US are overworked starting at least in residency.
We both know there is a difference between intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. This difference underlies so many things, including: (i) justification for regulatory frameworks; (ii) individual motivation; and (iii) likelihood of follow-up / compliance.
Second, assuming medical continuing education is something like 20 to 40 hours depending on the region [2], this feels meager and insufficient. In contrast, think of how much learning a software developer does during a year -- perhaps close to 5+ hours per week on average! [3] Very different contexts, very different incentives.
[1]: https://www.chronicle.com/article/lessons-from-a-professors-...
[2]: Based on very quick research: could be off -- corrections are welcome
[3]: There are many differences, of course. Just to pick one example: to what degree does a software developer's continuing exploration into an area (such as a specific business process that their application needs to understand) help their craft? Does it improve their skill level? Does it result in transferable skills? Does it improve the quality of their work?