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.
Saved in:
| Title: | 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. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Ashley, Helen1 helen.ashley@manchester.ac.uk, Gough, Suzanne2, Darlington, Carol3, Clark, Justin4, Mosley, Chiara5 |
| Source: | Medical Teacher. Feb2025, Vol. 47 Issue 2, p195-204. 10p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Curriculum, *Educational outcomes, *Continuing medical education, Medical information storage & retrieval systems, Personnel management, Patient safety, CINAHL database, Systematic reviews, MEDLINE, Online information services, Government regulation |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Medical Teacher is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 0142159X |
| DOI: | 10.1080/0142159X.2024.2331048 |
