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

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• Recency of practice
• Skill retention
• Health practitioners
• Regulatory standards
• Systematic review