Evidence for continuing professional development standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review

• Published in: Human resources for health Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 23 - 16
• Main Authors: Main, Penelope Ann Elizabeth, Anderson, Sarah
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 20.03.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Australia; Continuing education; Continuing professional development; e-learning; Education, Medical, Continuing - methods; Government regulation of business; Grey literature; Health Occupations; Health Personnel - education; Health practitioners; Humans; Learning; Medical personnel; Medical research; Medical Subject Headings-MeSH; Medicine; Medicine, Experimental; National libraries; Patient safety; Professional development; Professions; Quality control; Registration; Regulatory standards; Review; Scope of practice; Search strategies; Systematic review; Training; Australia; Continuing education; Health practitioners; Systematic review; e-learning; Continuing professional development; Regulatory standards
• ISSN: 1478-4491; 1478-4491
• DOI: 10.1186/s12960-023-00803-x

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. 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. 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. 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.