G2TT
来源类型Report
规范类型报告
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.7249/RR2455
来源IDRR-2455-AAPA
Identification of Alternative Physician Assistant Recertification Models: An Analysis of the Landscape and Evidence Surrounding Approaches to Recertification in the Health Professions
Rachel O. Reid; Erin Lindsey Duffy; Catherine C. Cohen; Mark W. Friedberg
发表日期2018-10-03
出版年2018
页码88
语种英语
结论

The environmental scan revealed a broad array of recertification requirements for health professionals across countries, professions, and organizations

  • Certifying organizations in the United States and other countries varied in their recertification requirements.
  • Recertification exams were most common in, but not exclusive to, the United States.
  • Alternatives to high-stakes exams were being considered or implemented by the U.S. PA certifying organization and several U.S. physician certifying organizations; these primarily included longitudinal assessments with smaller, regularly spaced batches of questions.
  • Most APN organizations had not required exams for recertification.

The literature review found limited evidence on how recertification requirements for U.S. PAs, U.S. APNs, and U.S. osteopathic physicians affect patients and health professionals

  • There was no empirical evidence concerning the effects of PA recertification (including high-stakes exams) on patient care.
  • The review found more evidence regarding U.S. allopathic physician recertification; some (but not all) studies found associations between recertification and indicators of better care.
  • The evidence regarding the impact of recertification requirements in other countries was more limited in size and scope than for U.S. allopathic physicians.

Interviews with health professional certifying organization representatives provided context about how organizations conceptualize their recertification and assessment requirements

  • Emphasis on formative and summative goals of recertification requirements varied.
  • Common themes emerged regarding attention to the relevance of requirements to health professionals' practice, as well as a perceived tension between a responsibility to assure the public of the health professionals' competence and a desire to account for the burdens on and preferences of health professionals.
摘要

Health professional recertification is intended to be a mechanism for demonstration and fostering of professional knowledge and competence. Recertification requirements vary among health professions and are evolving over time. RAND Corporation researchers assessed the landscape of recertification requirements for physician assistants (PAs), advanced practice nurses (APNs), and physicians in the United States and other countries through an environmental scan, reviewed the literature regarding the impact of recertification requirements on patients and health professionals, and conducted semi-structured interviews with certifying organization representatives.

,

Recertification requirements vary, including continuing education, exams or assessments, and other activities. Closed-book exams are most common in the United States. PA recertification currently requires a high-stakes closed-book exam; a pilot of a longitudinal assessment with smaller, regularly spaced batches of questions is planned. Many allopathic physician specialty boards are transitioning from recertification exams to longitudinal assessments; most osteopathic specialty boards require recertification exams. An exam is required for certified registered nurse anesthetist recertification, but not for other APNs. Evidence regarding the effects of recertification requirements on health professionals and patients for PAs, APNs, and professionals outside the United States is limited. The evidence mainly focuses on U.S. allopathic physicians. Physicians have mixed opinions about trade-offs between burden and professional benefit, and some, but not all, studies find associations between recertification and indicators of better care. Major themes reflected in interviews with certifying organizations included a desire to balance evaluative and educational goals, the tension felt between public responsibility and health professional preferences, and burden and applicability to practice.

目录
  • Chapter One

    Introduction

  • Chapter Two

    Assessment of the Landscape of Recertification Requirements

  • Chapter Three

    Review of the Literature Surrounding Recertification Requirements

  • Chapter Four

    Interviews with Health Professional Certifying Organizations

  • Chapter Five

    Conclusion

  • Appendix A

    Maintenance of Certification, Recertification, or Revalidation Requirements

  • Appendix B

    Questions from Semi-Structured Interview Guide

主题Health Care Education and Training ; Health Care Workforce Certification ; Nurses and Nursing ; Physicians
URLhttps://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2455.html
来源智库RAND Corporation (United States)
引用统计
资源类型智库出版物
条目标识符http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/523644
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Rachel O. Reid,Erin Lindsey Duffy,Catherine C. Cohen,et al. Identification of Alternative Physician Assistant Recertification Models: An Analysis of the Landscape and Evidence Surrounding Approaches to Recertification in the Health Professions. 2018.
条目包含的文件
文件名称/大小 资源类型 版本类型 开放类型 使用许可
RAND_RR2455.pdf(541KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
x1538567745118.jpg.p(2KB)智库出版物 限制开放CC BY-NC-SA浏览
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Rachel O. Reid]的文章
[Erin Lindsey Duffy]的文章
[Catherine C. Cohen]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Rachel O. Reid]的文章
[Erin Lindsey Duffy]的文章
[Catherine C. Cohen]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Rachel O. Reid]的文章
[Erin Lindsey Duffy]的文章
[Catherine C. Cohen]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
文件名: RAND_RR2455.pdf
格式: Adobe PDF
文件名: x1538567745118.jpg.pagespeed.ic.b9hJ5jsxru.jpg
格式: JPEG

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。