Teaching and learning modalities for continuing professional development in the long-term care: A rapid synthesis review |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Health Sciences, University of Genoa, Via A. Pastore 1, 16132 Genoa, Italy;2. European Centre of Excellence for Research in Continuing Professional Development, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St.Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Ireland;3. Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St.Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Ireland;4. Centre for Nursing and Midwifery Advancement, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, 123 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin, Ireland;5. Leading Healthcare Providers Skillnet, 2A Convent Road, Dun Laoghaire, Co. Dublin A96 W7C5, Ireland;1. Student of Medical Surgical Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;2. Department of Basic Sciences, Paramedicine School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;3. Medical, Surgical Nursing Department, Nursing and Midwifery School, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;4. Medical Education Research Center, Department of Medical Surgical Nursing, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;5. Medical Education Research Center, Health Management and Safety Promotion Research Institute, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran;6. Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada;1. Erciyes University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Kayseri, Türkiye;2. Kırşehir Ahi Evran University, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing, Kırşehir, Türkiye;3. Kayseri University, Incesu Ayşe and Saffet Arslan Health Services Vocational School, Department of Medical Services and Techniques, Kayseri, Türkiye;1. MGH Institute of Health Professions, USA;2. Henry Ford College, USA;3. Ron and Kathy Assaf College of Nursing, USA;4. Nova Southeastern University, USA;5. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care, & Pain Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA;1. School of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, Spain;2. School of New Interactive Technologies, University of Barcelona, Spain;1. School of Nursing, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China;2. Center for Information Management, Fujian Provincial Hospital, Fuzhou, China;3. School of Management Studies, Shanghai University of Engineering Science, Shanghai, China;4. School of Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, China;5. Departmentof Student Affairs, Fujian University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Fuzhou, China;6. School of Psychology, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China |
| |
| Abstract: | AimTo describe the various teaching and learning modalities for the delivery of Continuing Professional Development activities for health care professionals in the long-term care sector.BackgroundContinuing Professional Development is a key activity that organisations undertake to achieve effective workforce planning, recruitment, retention and upskilling strategies in long-term care settings. During the Covid-19 pandemic there was a rapid move to online modalities of Continuous Professional Development, but there is a paucity of evidence in relation to their effectiveness compared with face-to-face, or in-class learning.DesignA rapid synthesis review.MethodsMEDLINE, CINAHL and HEALTH BUSINESS ELITE databases were used to identify relevant articles that were published between 2016 and 2022. Original studies of any design investigating Continuing Professional Development activities, with or without a comparison between interventions or activities were included. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was followed. The Kirkpatrick model was adopted as a globally recognised method for evaluating training programmes.ResultsAfter a full text analysis, 34 papers were included in the review. Face to face was the most common method of delivery followed by online, while blended (a mix of face-to-face and online delivery) was the least common method used. The teaching modalities were not associated with specific learning contents, but were used for a range of content. Most studies obtained positive outcomes following implementation of the educational interventions. Kirkpatrick Level 4 (results) was the most commonly measured outcome.ConclusionsWhile blended learning was the least common method of delivery, it was found to be more beneficial for learners than face-to-face or online exclusively. There are now new spaces to learn and new technologies that allow us to ‘reimagine’ where, when and how we teach. This requires Continuing Professional Development providers to design and tailor their courses according to health professionals’ learning needs and the clinical contexts where they work. We recommend that Continuing Professional Development providers involve employers when designing teaching and learning activities for Long Term Care workers, to decide which modalities enable effective knowledge translation. |
| |
| Keywords: | Blended learning Continuing professional development (CPD) Evaluation learning methods Long term care (LTC) Pedagogical strategies |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
