Cargando…
Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review
BACKGROUND: Health practitioner regulators throughout the world use continuing professional development (CPD) standards to ensure that registrants maintain, improve and broaden their knowledge, expertise and competence. As the CPD standard for most regulated health professions in Australia are curre...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10026429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36941655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00803-x |
_version_ | 1784909538114142208 |
---|---|
author | Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth Anderson, Sarah |
author_facet | Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth Anderson, Sarah |
author_sort | Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Health practitioner regulators throughout the world use continuing professional development (CPD) standards to ensure that registrants maintain, improve and broaden their knowledge, expertise and competence. As the CPD standard for most regulated health professions in Australia are currently under review, it is timely that an appraisal of the evidence be undertaken. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using major databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL), search engines and grey literature for evidence published between 2015 and April 2022. Publications included in the review were assessed against the relevant CASP checklist for quantitative studies and the McMaster University checklist for qualitative studies. RESULTS: The search yielded 87 abstracts of which 37 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. The evidence showed that mandatory CPD requirements are a strong motivational factor for their completion and improves practitioners’ knowledge and behaviour. CPD that is more interactive is most effective and e-learning is as effective as face-to-face CPD. There is no direct evidence to suggest the optimal quantity of CPD, although there was some evidence that complex or infrequently used skills deteriorate between 4 months to a year after training, depending on the task. CONCLUSIONS: CPD is most effective when it is interactive, uses a variety of methods and is delivered in a sequence involving multiple exposures over a period of time that is focused on outcomes considered important by practitioners. Although there is no optimal quantity of CPD, there is evidence that complex skills may require more frequent CPD. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12960-023-00803-x. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10026429 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100264292023-03-21 Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth Anderson, Sarah Hum Resour Health Review BACKGROUND: Health practitioner regulators throughout the world use continuing professional development (CPD) standards to ensure that registrants maintain, improve and broaden their knowledge, expertise and competence. As the CPD standard for most regulated health professions in Australia are currently under review, it is timely that an appraisal of the evidence be undertaken. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using major databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL), search engines and grey literature for evidence published between 2015 and April 2022. Publications included in the review were assessed against the relevant CASP checklist for quantitative studies and the McMaster University checklist for qualitative studies. RESULTS: The search yielded 87 abstracts of which 37 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. The evidence showed that mandatory CPD requirements are a strong motivational factor for their completion and improves practitioners’ knowledge and behaviour. CPD that is more interactive is most effective and e-learning is as effective as face-to-face CPD. There is no direct evidence to suggest the optimal quantity of CPD, although there was some evidence that complex or infrequently used skills deteriorate between 4 months to a year after training, depending on the task. CONCLUSIONS: CPD is most effective when it is interactive, uses a variety of methods and is delivered in a sequence involving multiple exposures over a period of time that is focused on outcomes considered important by practitioners. Although there is no optimal quantity of CPD, there is evidence that complex skills may require more frequent CPD. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12960-023-00803-x. BioMed Central 2023-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10026429/ /pubmed/36941655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00803-x Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Review Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth Anderson, Sarah Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review |
title | Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review |
title_full | Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review |
title_short | Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review |
title_sort | evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in australia: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10026429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36941655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-023-00803-x |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mainpenelopeannelizabeth evidenceforcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentstandardsforregulatedhealthpractitionersinaustraliaasystematicreview AT andersonsarah evidenceforcontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentstandardsforregulatedhealthpractitionersinaustraliaasystematicreview |