It’s natural for healthcare educators to have an implicit appreciation of the benefits of their educational services. After all, it’s logical to assume that a more knowledgeable and highly skilled workforce can provide better patient care.
Yet, health administrators don’t always understand or appreciate how a training program can result in improved care, and ultimately, reduced costs.
As Girdler (2009) says, proving that continuing education leads to better patient outcomes is something that many educators struggle with. Yet, in times of financial constraints, it becomes more important than ever for healthcare educators to know how to demonstrate the value of their services (Garrison & Beverage 2018).
It’s so important to know how to prove to human resources (HR) managers and finance directors that the time and resources dedicated to educational activities are worth the impact they have on clinical outcomes (Opperman et al. 2016).
Traditionally, educators haven’t had to justify the value of their work. But, as Cervero (2018) points out, whilst huge financial resources are put into general education, there is much less investment in continuing professional development (CPD).
Yet, this final and longest phase of a health professional’s career is typically underfunded, leaving many educators wondering how best to secure the financial support needed for ongoing training. It raises the question: can the value of CPD be measured and quantified in a way that makes a convincing business case for investment? (Cervero 2018).
Continuing professional development for healthcare professionals is an important strategic instrument for improving health. In the UK, for example, the Department of Health (Brown et al. 2002) helpfully identifies CPD as providing the following key benefits:
Yet, to demonstrate the value of participating in CPD, economic proof is often needed, especially when resources for health care are scarce, and money spent on CPD could otherwise be used for direct patient care.
So, what can educators do to present a convincing business case and free up funding for ongoing educational needs?
Although Wise et al. (2018) suggest that it’s best to use a team-based approach when building a business case, it’s also possible for individual educators to put together a compelling case for educational funding.
As Karahanna (2018) explains, the purpose of a business case is to provide the basis for making a decision as to whether to move forward with a specific project. Buzachero et al. (2013) also point out that creating a business case helps position the project for success by aligning its intended outcomes with organisational needs. This business alignment is essential if the investment in a project is to reap a return.
Whilst there are numerous templates that can be used to build a business case, Karahanna (2018) suggests that there are five essential components that should always be present:
The problem description explains why there is a need for financial investment. It asks the question ‘what is the problem, and why does it need to be solved’? This part of the business proposal must be both compelling and convincing, as well as describe a real problem that a training course can help to solve.
This section of the business proposal outlines the scope of the project and describes how the problem will be addressed. It may also require a needs assessment to justify expenditure.
Outlining the business benefits of a training event is one of the most important stages of the proposal. For example, reduced costs, or improved quality of care. To be considered worthwhile, however, business objectives also need to be stated in a way that is both specific and verifiable as well as associated with a time frame.
Costs associated with the training program should be quantified if possible and include both developmental and operating costs. Both tangible and intangible costs should be considered at this stage.
The final component of a business case is designed to answer the questions, ‘can we proceed with this project?’ and ‘if so, should we?’
Not every training project can be justified from a purely financial standpoint, but in the view of Karahanna (2018), the intangible or non-financial benefits may still be sufficiently compelling to move forward and grant funding anyway.
In general terms, however, once the problem and potential solutions have been described, and the benefits, costs and risks of the project have all been identified, the return on investment (ROI) can then be calculated.
Return on investment is commonly used as a measure of performance that evaluates the efficiency and quality of an investment, measuring the return relative to the cost. It’s used as a tool to guide decision-making and prove the worth of the investment. As Girdler (2018) points out, it’s an important concept for educators to grasp when applying for funding.
Many healthcare educators are challenged by the question, 'What is the return on investment for a given professional development activity?'
Calculating the return on investment isn’t normally a task that educators consider part of their role, but as competition for funding increases, many trainers are now having to embrace these skills to secure their training budgets. These are important skills to have because knowing how to calculate the financial impact of educational interventions can change the perspective of finance directors, helping them to appreciate the wider picture. Benefits can be highlighted, not just in terms of patient care but for the organisation as a whole.
As Garrison and Beverage (2018) suggest, calculating the ROI is the most commonly accepted way to quantify the value that professional development brings to the organisation. As Opperman et al. (2018) say, whilst practitioners routinely measure the impact of educational interventions on clinical care, they seldom consider the financial impact of the same educational events, suggesting that more consistent measuring and reporting of the financial and clinical impact of continuing professional development is needed.
That said, consistent and standardised methods of calculating the ROI of educational activities are hard to find in the literature.
As Brown et al. (2002) point out, whilst the literature on the effectiveness of CPD continues to expand, educational effectiveness is not necessarily a sufficient criterion for implementation. In other words, for scarce resources to be devoted to education, the relative cost-effectiveness of different educational interventions needs to be established, allowing finance departments to select those offering the most value for money.
Brown et al. (2002) also go on to suggest that cost-effectiveness analysis in research is rare. This, they suggest, is due to:
Ultimately, it's perhaps true to say that the very nature of continuing education is changing - not all education needs to be live, and not all staff need to be trained on every topic (Garrison and Beverage 2018).
With the growing presence of online classrooms, on-demand learning and mobile technologies, the challenge remains to decrease the cost of education yet still maintain its effectiveness.
Assign mandatory training and keep all your records in-one-place.
Find out more
Ausmed Education is a Trusted Information Partner of Healthdirect Australia. Verify here.
New 