Evidence for recency of practice standards for regulated health practitioners in Australia: a systematic review

Abstract

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.

An integrative review of the impact of allied health student placements on current staff’s knowledge and procedural skills in acute and primary care settings

“…Clinical placements benefit students, educational institutions, and healthcare organisations in different ways, including personal growth and professional experience for students, academic rigour and service to the community for universities, and a workforce fit to practice in healthcare organisations. Evidence shows that clinical placements of students with exposure to acute and primary healthcare contexts are associated with better impacts in terms of students’ intellectual transformation [ 18 – 20 ], workforce capacity building [ 21 – 23 ], and patient health outcomes [ 24 , 25 ]. There remains a notable gap in research on allied health student placements that builds staff capability.…”

“…Professional development is imperative for healthcare staff to stay up to date with knowledge and technical skills and create innovative treatment planning. Complex and infrequently used clinical skills often deteriorate among health professionals, as confirmed in a systematic review by Main and Anderson [ 25 ] in Australia [ 26 ]. The National Health Workforce Strategy advocates for continuing professional education and training for health professionals so that professionals “maintain, improve, and broaden their knowledge, expertise, and competence, and develop the personal and professional qualities throughout their professional lives” [ 27 ].…”

How much continuing professional development is too much and how much is too little?

“…A very interesting systematic review by Main and Anderson looked at the evidence for CPD 1 . They asked eight questions in the 37 eligible papers analysed, of which a couple are summarised below.…”