English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Precursors to Professional Development and Recognition Programmes (PDRPs) emerged in the United States during the 1980s and, over the past three decades, have become well known and used in New Zealand. Pedagogically, PDRPs are often underpinned by the seminal work of Benner (1984) which supports nurses to develop critical and clinical thinking and importantly, expertise. As a tool supporting Continuing Professional Development (CPD), a PDRP has additional benefits. These include validation of regulatory continuing competence requirements and, at some levels, a financial reward. Yet, when given the option to participate in a PDRP, nurses choose not to. This article reports on findings from a recently completed, mixed methods study where nurses’ decisions to participate in a PDRP were examined. Their explanations portrayed how they were positively disposed to the programme but that time, confusion between regulatory competencies, and PDRP requirements, together with the responses of their colleagues, often made crossing the divide between simply liking the idea of PDRPs and submitting a portfolio impossible. Given this context, are PDRPs still fit for purpose?

scope. health and wellbeing

Fit for Educational Purpose? The Findings of a Mixed Methods Study of Nurses’ Decisions to Participate in Professional Development and Recognition Programmes