Hitting the target and missing the point? A BEME systematic review of evidence regarding the efficacy of statutory and mandatory training in health and care : BEME Guide No. 87
BACKGROUND: Mandatory training is considered fundamental to establishing and maintaining high standards of professional practice. There is little evidence however, of the training either achieving its required learning outcomes, or delivering improvement in outcomes for patients. Whist organisations may be hitting their compliance target for mandatory training, is the purpose missing the point? This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate the efficacy of statutory and mandatory training.
METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CNAHL, ERIC and Cochrane Central registers were searched on 23rd May 2023. All research designs were included and reported training had to specify an organisational mandate within a healthcare setting. Data was coded using a modified Kirkpatrick (KP) rating system. Critical appraisal was undertaken using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Studies checklist and Mixed Methods Assessment Tool.
RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included, featuring 9132 participants and 1348 patient cases audited. Studies described evaluation of mandatory training according to Kirkpatrick's outcomes levels 1-4b, with the majority (68%) undertaken in the UK and within acute settings. Training duration varied from 5 min to 3 days. There is a lack of consensus regarding mandatory training rationale, core topics, duration, and optimum refresher training period. Currently, mandatory training does not consistently translate to widescale improvements in safe practice or improved patient outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of international consensus regarding the need for mandated training, most papers originated from countries with centrally administered national health care systems. The rationale for mandating training programmes remains undefined. The assumption that mandatory training is delivering safe practice outcomes is not supported by studies included in this review. The findings of this review offer a basis for further research to be undertaken to assist with the design, facilitation, and impact of mandatory training.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - year:2024 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Medical teacher - (2024) vom: 10. Apr., Seite 1-10 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Ashley, Helen [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 10.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1080/0142159X.2024.2331048 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370886550 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370886550 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240411233134.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240411s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1080/0142159X.2024.2331048 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1372.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370886550 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38599334 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Ashley, Helen |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Hitting the target and missing the point? A BEME systematic review of evidence regarding the efficacy of statutory and mandatory training in health and care |b BEME Guide No. 87 |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 10.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Mandatory training is considered fundamental to establishing and maintaining high standards of professional practice. There is little evidence however, of the training either achieving its required learning outcomes, or delivering improvement in outcomes for patients. Whist organisations may be hitting their compliance target for mandatory training, is the purpose missing the point? This systematic review aims to synthesize and evaluate the efficacy of statutory and mandatory training | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CNAHL, ERIC and Cochrane Central registers were searched on 23rd May 2023. All research designs were included and reported training had to specify an organisational mandate within a healthcare setting. Data was coded using a modified Kirkpatrick (KP) rating system. Critical appraisal was undertaken using the Modified Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument, Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Studies checklist and Mixed Methods Assessment Tool | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included, featuring 9132 participants and 1348 patient cases audited. Studies described evaluation of mandatory training according to Kirkpatrick's outcomes levels 1-4b, with the majority (68%) undertaken in the UK and within acute settings. Training duration varied from 5 min to 3 days. There is a lack of consensus regarding mandatory training rationale, core topics, duration, and optimum refresher training period. Currently, mandatory training does not consistently translate to widescale improvements in safe practice or improved patient outcomes | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of international consensus regarding the need for mandated training, most papers originated from countries with centrally administered national health care systems. The rationale for mandating training programmes remains undefined. The assumption that mandatory training is delivering safe practice outcomes is not supported by studies included in this review. The findings of this review offer a basis for further research to be undertaken to assist with the design, facilitation, and impact of mandatory training | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Best evidence medical education | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SDG 10: Reduced inequalities | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SDG 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SDG 4: Quality education | |
| 650 | 4 | |a SDG 5: Gender equality | |
| 650 | 4 | |a mandatory training | |
| 650 | 4 | |a methods | |
| 650 | 4 | |a statutory training | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gough, Suzanne |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Darlington, Carol |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Clark, Justin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mosley, Chiara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Medical teacher |d 1979 |g (2024) vom: 10. Apr., Seite 1-10 |w (DE-627)NLM012742929 |x 1466-187X |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g year:2024 |g day:10 |g month:04 |g pages:1-10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2331048 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |j 2024 |b 10 |c 04 |h 1-10 | ||