Evidence for continuing professional development and recency of practice standards for regulated health professionals in Australia: protocol for a systematic review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Penelope Ann Elizabeth Main ◽  
Sarah Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
Health Practitioner ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Ministerial Council ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Regulatory Practice

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.

scholarly journals Attitudes towards continuing professional development: a qualitative study of Australian paramedics

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Williams ◽  
Tanya Edlington
Keyword(s):  
Professional Development ◽  
Continuing Professional Development ◽  
Sampling Technique ◽  
Health Practitioner ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Data Saturation ◽  
Professional Requirements

BackgroundIn December 2018 Australian paramedics and the paramedicine discipline became nationally registered under the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA). Paramedics are now required to register and satisfy registration requirements in order to work as a paramedic. One of the mandatory registration standards is continuing professional development (CPD). This study examines attitudes and perceptions held by Australian paramedics in relation to CPD. MethodsA qualitative research project was undertaken using semi-structured interviews. A purposive snowballing sampling technique was employed to invite paramedics currently working in Australia to participate in telephone-based interviews. Data were analysed using a thematic analysis approach. The transcripts were read several times to determine repeated themes and these themes were then coded by two authors. Data saturation was considered to have occurred after 18 interviews. ResultsEighteen paramedics responded and were interviewed; 16 of the respondents were male with the majority coming from Victoria. Broadly, four key themes were identified from analysis of the interviews. These included: 1) identification of CPD activities and requirements, 2) motivation, 3) factors influencing choice of activity, and 4) barriers.ConclusionThere was general acceptance of the need for paramedics to stay up-to-date with current practice. Generally, this was seen as a responsibility of the employer but some individuals made the distinction between employment requirements and professional requirements. We would encourage ongoing research in this area particularly as CPD develops over time for paramedicine in Australia.

scholarly journals Immediate Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Line Kessel ◽  
Jens Andresen ◽  
Ditte Erngaard ◽  
Per Flesner ◽  
Britta Tendal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Visual Outcome ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Bilateral Cataract ◽  
Grade Method ◽  
Meta Analyses

The aim of the present systematic review was to examine the benefits and harms associated with immediate sequential bilateral cataract surgery (ISBCS) with specific emphasis on the rate of complications, postoperative anisometropia, and subjective visual function in order to formulate evidence-based national Danish guidelines for cataract surgery. A systematic literature review in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane central databases identified three randomized controlled trials that compared outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or bilateral cataract surgery on two different dates. Meta-analyses were performed using the Cochrane Review Manager software. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE method (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). We did not find any difference in the risk of complications or visual outcome in patients randomized to ISBCS or surgery on two different dates. The quality of evidence was rated as low to very low. None of the studies reported the prevalence of postoperative anisometropia. In conclusion, we cannot provide evidence-based recommendations on the use of ISBCS due to the lack of high quality evidence. Therefore, the decision to perform ISBCS should be taken after careful discussion between the surgeon and the patient.

Corrigendum to: Approaches to management of complaints and notifications about health practitioners in Australia

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 353
Author(s):  
Claudette S. Satchell ◽  
Merrilyn Walton ◽  
Patrick J. Kelly ◽  
Elizabeth M. Chiarella ◽  
Suzanne M. Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Health Practitioner ◽  
Handling System ◽  
National Accreditation ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Complaint Handling ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Productivity Commission ◽  
Similarities And Differences

In 2005, the Australian Productivity Commission made a recommendation that a national health registration regimen and a consolidated national accreditation regimen be established. On 1 July 2010, the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme (NRAS) for health practitioners came into effect and the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) became the single national oversight agency for health professional regulation. It is governed by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act (the National Law). While all states and territories joined NRAS for registration and accreditation, NSW did not join the scheme for the handling of complaints, but retained its existing co-regulatory complaint-handling system. All other states and territories joined the national notification (complaints) scheme prescribed in the National Law. Because the introduction of NRAS brings with it new processes and governance around the management of complaints that apply to all regulated health professionals in all states and territories except NSW, where complaints management remains largely unchanged, there is a need for comparative analysis of these differing national and NSW approaches to the management of complaints/notifications about health professionals, not only to allow transparency for consumers, but also to assess consistency of decision making around complaints/notifications across jurisdictions. This paper describes the similarities and differences for complaints/notifications handling between the NRAS and NSW schemes and briefly discusses subsequent and potential changes in other jurisdictions.

scholarly journals Adjuvant chemotherapy for early female breast cancer: A systematic review of the evidence for the 2014 Cancer Care Ontario systemic therapy guideline

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 ◽  
pp. 82 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Gandhi ◽  
G.G. Fletcher ◽  
A. Eisen ◽  
M. Mates ◽  
O.C. Freedman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Endocrine Therapy ◽  
Early Breast Cancer ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Cytotoxic Chemotherapy ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundThe Program in Evidence-Based Care (PEBC) of Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) has recently created an evidence-based consensus guideline on the systemic treatment of early breast cancer.  The evidence for this guideline was compiled using a systematic review to answer the question:  “What is the optimal systemic therapy for patients with early-stage, operable breast cancer, when patient and disease factors are considered?”  This question was addressed in three parts: cytotoxic chemotherapy, endocrine treatment, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) directed therapy.MethodsA systematic review was performed using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for the period January 2008 to May 2014.  The SAGE Directory of Cancer Guidelines and websites of major oncology guideline organizations were also searched.  The basic search terms were “breast cancer” and “systemic therapy” (chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, targeted agents, ovarian suppression), and was limited to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), guidelines, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. ResultsSeveral hundred documents were retrieved that met the inclusion criteria; the Early Breast Cancer Trialists Collaborative Group (EBCTCG) meta-analyses encompassed many of the RCTs found. Several additional studies which met the inclusion criteria were included, as well as other guidelines and systematic reviews.  Chemotherapy was largely reviewed as three classes of agents: anti-metabolite based regimens (e.g., CMF), anthracyclines, and taxane-based regimens. Single-agent chemotherapy in general is not recommended for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer in any patient population.  Anthracycline and taxane-based polychemotherapy regimens are overall considered superior to earlier generation regimens, with the most significant impact on patient survival outcomes. Various regimens with disparate anthracycline and taxane doses and schedules are options; in general, paclitaxel given every 3 weeks is inferior. Evidence does not support the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant setting; other systemic therapy agents such as metformin and vaccines remain under investigation. Adjuvant bisphosphonates for menopausal women will be discussed in later work.  ConclusionThe results of this systematic review represent a comprehensive compilation of high-level evidence which was the basis for the 2014 PEBC CCO guideline on systemic therapy for early breast cancer. The use of cytotoxic chemotherapy is presented here; the results addressing endocrine therapy and HER-2 targeted treatment, as well as the final clinical practice recommendations, are published separately in this issue.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document