Background Continuing professional development (CPD) and recency of practice (ROP) standards are components of health practitioner regulation in Australia. The CPD and ROP standards are currently under review, and an evidence base to assist the development of consistent standards is required. Preliminary searching was unable to find a recent systematic review of the literature to provide an evidence base to underpin the standards review. Objective This paper presents the protocol for a systematic review that aims to develop a current evidence base that will support the National Boards to develop more consistent, evidence-based, effective standards that are clear and easy to understand and operationalize. Methods Research questions were developed to support the planned review of CPD and ROP registration standards. Major databases and relevant journals were searched for articles published in English between 2015 and 2021, using key search terms based on previous unpublished reviews of the CPD and ROP registration standards. The quality of the articles retrieved will be assessed using an instrument suitable for use in the development of public policy. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Results In September 2021, our search strategy identified 18,002 studies for the CPD-related research questions after removal of duplicates. Of these, 509 records were screened based on their title, and 66 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility based on their abstract, of which 31 met the inclusion criteria. A further 291 articles were identified as relevant to the ROP research questions. Of these, 87 records were screened based on their title, and 46 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility based on their abstract, of which 8 studies met our inclusion criteria. Conclusions This protocol outlines the scope and methodology that will be used to conduct a systematic review of evidence for CPD and ROP and inform a review of the standards for regulated health professionals in Australia. Previous research has shown that while CPD improves practitioner knowledge, the link to public safety is unclear. While there has been a greater focus on maintenance of certification and other quality assurance activities over the past 10 years, there remains great variability in CPD requirements across both professions and jurisdictions. ROP was found to be a poorly researched area with most research concentrating on medical practitioners, nurses, and midwives and no clear consensus about the optimal time period after which retraining or an assessment of competence should be introduced. As the CPD and ROP standards are currently under review, it is timely that a review of current evidence be undertaken. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/28625
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.
Background Health practitioner regulators throughout the world use registration standards to define the requirements health practitioners need to meet for registration. These standards commonly include recency of practice (ROP) standards designed to ensure that registrants have sufficient recent practice in the scope in which they intend to work to practise safely. As the ROP registration standards for most National Boards are currently under review, it is timely that an appraisal of current evidence be carried out. Methods A systematic review was conducted using databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL), search engines, and a review of grey literature published between 2015 and April 2022. Publications included in the review were assessed against the relevant CASP checklist for quantitative studies and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies. Results The search yielded 65 abstracts of which 12 full-text articles met the inclusion criteria. Factors that appear to influence skills retention include the length of time away from practice, level of previous professional experience and age, as well as the complexity of the intervention. The review was unable to find a clear consensus on the period of elapsed time after which a competency assessment should be completed. Conclusions Factors that need to be taken into consideration in developing ROP standards include length of time away from practice, previous experience, age and the complexity of the intervention, however, there is a need for further research in this area.
Objective Studies of Australian health workforce demographics tend to be limited to single professions, a set geographic area, or based on incomplete data. This study aims to comprehensively describe changes to the demographic characteristics of Australia’s regulated health professions over 6 years. Methods Data were sourced from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) registration database, and a retrospective analysis of 15 of the 16 regulated health professions between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2021 was conducted. Variables including profession, age, gender and state/territory locations for the practitioners’ principal places of practice were analysed descriptively and via appropriate statistical tests. Results Changes in age, gender representation, and place of practice varied significantly and in different ways across the 15 professions. The total number of registered health practitioners increased by 141 161 (22%) from 2016 to 2021. The number of registered health practitioners per 100 000 population increased by 14% from 2016, with considerable variation across the professions. In 2021, women accounted for 76.3% of health practitioners across the 15 health professions, a significant increase of 0.5% points since 2016. Conclusions Changes to demographics, especially in ageing workforces and feminising professions, can have implications for workforce planning and sustainability. Future research could build on this demographic trend data by investigating causes or undertaking workforce supply or demand modelling.
UNSTRUCTURED Introduced in 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme currently regulates 16 health professions under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (National Law) as enforced in each state/territory. The National Law requires that National Boards must develop, consult on and recommend certain registration standards to the Australian Health Workforce Ministerial Council. These core registration standards are generally reviewed every five years in line with good regulatory practice. The registration standards for continuing professional development (CPD) and recency of practice (ROP) for most National Boards are currently under review. The aim of the systematic review is to support the National Boards to develop more consistent, evidence-based, effective standards that are clear, easy to understand and operationalise. It is designed to build on earlier research commissioned and/or undertaken by the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra) for previous reviews of the CPD and ROP registration standards and is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. This protocol outlines the scope and methodology that will be used to conduct a systematic review of evidence for continuing professional development and recency of practice to inform a review of the standards for regulated health professionals in Australia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.