File
Fricke M1,2
1University of Manitoba, Physical Therapy, Winnipeg, Canada, 2College of Physiotherapists of Manitoba, Physical Therapy, Winnipeg, Canada
Background: Evidence of on-going professional competence is a requirement for many regulated health professionals in jurisdictions around the world. Where Continuing Competence Programs exist, it is important that strategies for assessment of competence are evaluated for their relevance and feasibility to clinicians. In the context of self-regulation, regulatory bodies need to ensure that these approaches are effective, meaningful and help serve to protect the public interest. A three-pronged framework including practice reflection, practice audits and practice support was implemented for physiotherapists in one provincial jurisdiction in Canada starting in 2013. A structured evaluation approach of this new program was implemented from its inception and continues on an on-going basis, facilitating modifications in response to the continued evolution of the health care environment in which physiotherapists provide care.
Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to share the program logic model developed in the implementation of this Continuing Competence Program developed by physiotherapists for physiotherapists. Embedded evaluation strategies and relevant results will be highlighted.
Methods: Program evaluation strategies have been intentional and multiple since the Continuing Competence Program's inception. Participation rates, survey results and a focus group have highlighted the experiences of the physiotherapist participants from 2013-2018. A descriptive review of the practice areas in which physiotherapists face the greatest challenges in meeting the practice standards has also been conducted.
Results: Participation rates of physiotherapists in the practice reflection component of the Continuing Competence Program have varied since 2013 from a low of 48% to a high of 77% of the roughly 845 active registrants. Practice audit results to date (n=58 registrants; 7% of the total number of active registrants) have indicated that areas in which physiotherapists are inconsistently applying practice standards include documentation (informed consent, treatment parameters, patient goals and discharge summaries); the use of outcome measures; and the appropriate use of social media. Practice audits have resulted in individual practice support programs for two individuals (2 of 58 audited registrants; or 3%). Participant feedback of the practice audit component has suggested that parts of the process may be redundant with quality assurance processes already in place in larger teaching centres, but are valuable in smaller and more isolated practice settings. Participants have indicated six-months following the practice audits that permanent practice changes have taken place as a result of the practice audit including maintaining a professional portfolio; the process of obtaining and documenting informed consent; the use of and recording of outcome measures.
Conclusion(s): Continuing Competence Programs are an effective strategy to facilitate physiotherapists' active engagement in their own professional standards and expectations. Physiotherapists are attending to their on-going professional competence in their own context of practice, but several practice areas are at greater risk of inconsistencies. Attention to these risks in a supportive environment can help physiotherapists ensure they are meeting their professional obligations while optimizing the public's access to safe and effective physiotherapy care.
Implications: The results of this evaluation of a Continuing Competence Program can assist other jurisdictions in formulating their own programs in their own context of practice.
Keywords: continuing competence, evaluation, professional development
Funding acknowledgements: No external funding was received for this initiative.
Purpose: The purpose of this presentation is to share the program logic model developed in the implementation of this Continuing Competence Program developed by physiotherapists for physiotherapists. Embedded evaluation strategies and relevant results will be highlighted.
Methods: Program evaluation strategies have been intentional and multiple since the Continuing Competence Program's inception. Participation rates, survey results and a focus group have highlighted the experiences of the physiotherapist participants from 2013-2018. A descriptive review of the practice areas in which physiotherapists face the greatest challenges in meeting the practice standards has also been conducted.
Results: Participation rates of physiotherapists in the practice reflection component of the Continuing Competence Program have varied since 2013 from a low of 48% to a high of 77% of the roughly 845 active registrants. Practice audit results to date (n=58 registrants; 7% of the total number of active registrants) have indicated that areas in which physiotherapists are inconsistently applying practice standards include documentation (informed consent, treatment parameters, patient goals and discharge summaries); the use of outcome measures; and the appropriate use of social media. Practice audits have resulted in individual practice support programs for two individuals (2 of 58 audited registrants; or 3%). Participant feedback of the practice audit component has suggested that parts of the process may be redundant with quality assurance processes already in place in larger teaching centres, but are valuable in smaller and more isolated practice settings. Participants have indicated six-months following the practice audits that permanent practice changes have taken place as a result of the practice audit including maintaining a professional portfolio; the process of obtaining and documenting informed consent; the use of and recording of outcome measures.
Conclusion(s): Continuing Competence Programs are an effective strategy to facilitate physiotherapists' active engagement in their own professional standards and expectations. Physiotherapists are attending to their on-going professional competence in their own context of practice, but several practice areas are at greater risk of inconsistencies. Attention to these risks in a supportive environment can help physiotherapists ensure they are meeting their professional obligations while optimizing the public's access to safe and effective physiotherapy care.
Implications: The results of this evaluation of a Continuing Competence Program can assist other jurisdictions in formulating their own programs in their own context of practice.
Keywords: continuing competence, evaluation, professional development
Funding acknowledgements: No external funding was received for this initiative.
Topic: Professional issues; Education: continuing professional development
Ethics approval required: No
Institution: Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Ethics committee: Tri-Council Policy Statement for Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans
Reason not required: Program evaluation is exempt from Canadian Research Ethics Board Review (Article 2.5). Care was taken to maintain anonymity of any identifying data.
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
