What Learners Really Think About Your Journal CME
If you award CME credit to learners completing journal activities, give yourself a pat on the back. You’ve figured out how to meld online learning with incentivized exposure to research-based insights. You’re making clinicians better at what they do, and that benefits all of us!
So, what do your learners think of your journal-based CME activities? The question matters because every CME provider wants to meet learners’ expectations.
The truth — and this could hurt a little, so be prepared — is that learners aren’t always happy with what you present them with.
No, we’re not talking about content. We’re talking about interface navigability, software features, and overall ease of use. If you’re like most providers, there’s room for improvement with all of those things.
And guess what? Your learners know it.
Learners are strapped for time
One reason learners prefer online CME activities, such as journal and enduring content, is that they simply can’t find the time to attend traditional meetings.
That isn’t just our opinion. It’s something healthcare professionals routinely report when asked to respond to surveys. Providing journal CME helps learners manage their time in a major way, but that doesn’t mean just any old online interface is going to be welcome.
Much of the journal CME available today is delivered via two interfaces: one for journal content and one for activities. That’s complicated because it forces learners to use two logins and figure out some kind of split screen arrangement — or resort to printing the articles and flipping through them while they complete the activity.
In other words, it doesn’t feel like an interface from the 2020s.
What does a streamlined journal CME interface look like?
For starters, there will just be one login. Once you’re in, you’re in.
Next, learners should be able to read journal content and complete activities from the same screen. They shouldn’t have to keep multiple apps open in different windows or resort to printing paper documents.
Rievent Connect achieves both of these goals by embedding activities into your journal content. Whatever content platform you use today, whether homegrown or third-party, Rievent Connect plugs the CME request for credit alongside your articles. Learners can consume all content, complete tests, and request credit from the same screen.
Nowadays, learners are used to doing everything online. This is the kind of experience they expect.
Amazon doesn’t make you browse for items on one screen and then open a separate app to pay for your merchandise. Likewise, there’s little reason to separate CME activities from the journal content that’s the basis for those activities.
Learners also want easier account admin
It’s not just activity completion that they want to improve. Learners want easier information access, too.
After completing activities, learners will often need an updated certificate or transcript reflecting their most recent credit. If you follow a typical (that is, old fashioned) process for document requests, there’s a good chance your learners are disappointed.
In addition to content-activity integration, your CME platform should:
- Instantly update learner profiles with the credits they’ve just earned
- Auto-generate a certificate reflecting the most recent CME activity completion
- Allow learners to download those certificates and transcripts the moment they’ve completed an activity
Providing this kind of document access — and yes, Rievent and Rievent Connect include it as a standard feature — saves learners additional time and eliminates many common frustrations they experience with most CME technologies.
So, that’s what learners think about your journal CME
Basically, learners think the online delivery is clunky and lacks a lot of the features they’d expect from a modern platform. They’re reminded of those shortcomings every time they struggle to complete an activity or file a manual document request.
The good news? By meeting those expectations and delivering the CME experience your learners want, you’ll immediately distinguish yourself from the majority of providers clinging to the old way.
Whose journal CME do you think will hold more appeal?