Barriers and enablers to applying for the Dietitians Association of Australia Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian credential: A qualitative analysis

Abstract

Aim The present study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to applying for the Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian (AdvAPD) credential as well as problems with the application process. Methods Eleven Accredited Practising Dietitians (APDs) and nine AdvAPDs were recruited to participate by telephone in focus groups or in one‐on‐one interviews via the weekly national Dietitians Association of Australia (DAA) e‐alert and advertisement at the 2012 National Conference. Semistructured interview schedules were used to guide the groups and interviews which were recorded via the DAA conferencing facility and subsequently transcribed verbatim. Themes were identified using qualitative analysis software. Results Barriers to applying for the AdvAPD credential included the onerousness of the process, busy‐ness/finding the time, and having competing priorities, while working with colleagues, receiving recognition and having an AdvAPD mentor were predominant enablers. Problems identified with the application process included the difficulty in completing specific parts of the application, particularly the research and management/supervision components, and the assessment/definition of advanced practice itself. Suggested improvements included the use of technology in submission, and provision of a range of examples for reference. Conclusions APDs wishing to apply for the AdvAPD credential are encouraged to apply key findings such as engaging a mentor, working with colleagues and seeking successful application examples as strategies within their plan. The broader results will inform the review of the performance criteria and evidence examples currently available to AdvAPD applicants and support development of additional tools to assist the application process.

Perceptions of private practice dietitians regarding the collection and use of outcomes data in primary healthcare practices: A qualitative study

“…APDs had varying degrees of experience, with three achieving the status of Advanced APD. 17 The majority of the TLs had between 6 and 19 years practice experience with a further 30% having >20 years of experience. Practice sizes range from solo practitioners to large group practices employing >20 dietitians nationally.…”

“…Two peer nominated dietitians now employed in data analytic roles were included in the study as a result of their unique mix of both prior clinical and current data management expertise. APDs had varying degrees of experience, with three achieving the status of Advanced APD 17 . The majority of the TLs had between 6 and 19 years practice experience with a further 30% having >20 years of experience.…”

“…2020/607). The lead author has owned a primary care practice for 15 years and is an Advanced Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD), which is a status awarded to Australian dietitians who have demonstrated high‐level knowledge and skills in five domains of practice (leadership and influence; professional competence; research and evaluation; education, supervision/mentoring; and strategic and reflective practice) 17 …”

Minimum reporting standards for process and outcomes assessments for private practice dietitians working in Australian primary care: The Thought Leader Consensus study

“…Most participants ( n = 21; 81%) were currently practising as an Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD). APDs had varying degrees of experience, with four achieving the status of Advanced APD 39 . Five thought leaders with primary data operations responsibilities were also nominated to participate.…”

“…One potential limitation of the study is that all thought leaders have an Australian health care focus, and the relevance of these findings to an international audience may require further investigation. In addition, the characteristics of the primary researcher (who is an Advanced APD 39 and dietetics business owner) were both a strength and weakness of the study and had the potential to influence the dependability of the research process 47 . Methodological decisions such as independent double coding, collaborative de‐briefing and ongoing reflection during the analysis phase were introduced to improve the trustworthiness of the findings.…”