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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth, Anderson, Sarah
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