Integration and Innovation: Medical and Health Consortia Improving Continuing Medical Education in China

Kang An¹Jinyi Zhang^2,3Xingyou Wang⁴Yi She^1,5Shuangqing Li^1,6*Sheyu Li^7,8*

• ¹General Practice Ward/International Medical Center Ward, General Practice Medical Center, National Clinical Research Center for Geriatrics, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
• ²Chengdu Second People's Hospital, Chengdu, China
• ³School of Computing, Ulster University, Belfast, United Kingdom
• ⁴School of Health Policy and Management, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China
• ⁵Jin-cheng Community Health Service Center, Chengdu, Chengdu, China
• ⁶Fang-cao Community Health Service Center, Chengdu, China
• ⁷Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
• ⁸Division of Guideline and Rapid Recommendation, Cochrane China Center, MAGIC China Center, Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China

Abstract Background: Primary health care (PHC) is the cornerstone of the healthcare system in China. The medical and health consortia (medical consortia) integrate resources of continuing medical education (CME) to bridge competency gaps among healthcare providers. This narrative review aims to explore the innovative models of CME within the framework of medical consortia. Methods: Searches were conducted in both Chinese and English databases to broaden the scope of the review, including China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, and PubMed. Chinese policy documents were retrieved from official websites of China's National Health Commission. The review analysed existing policy documents (2010-2025) and relevant literature, supplemented by an institutional application example of the West China Hospital–Fangcao Community Health Service Center Medical Consortium to explore challenges and recommendations. Results: China developed a series of policies to promote the construction of medical consortia, with a focus on resource-sharing between tertiary and PHC institutions. A literature search yielded 196 articles, including qualitative studies, quantitative studies, and reviews, of which 48 met inclusion criteria in the review. Seven policy documents were included in the analysis. The synergy between medical consortia and CME brought benefits to both healthcare providers and the health system. Key innovations included clinical scenario-oriented training, remote consultation, and flexible training modalities. However, the reviewed literature highlighted persistent challenges, including regional disparities in resources, limited financial incentives for general practitioners (GPs), and a shortage of qualified trainers. Overcoming barriers such as regional resource disparities and improving the intrinsic motivation of GPs remained critical to the implementation of CME. Conclusions: Medical consortia offer platforms for the delivery of CME, while CME supports the development of medical consortia. These innovations enhance collaboration between specialists and GPs, thereby optimising patient referrals and follow-up care.