Rachael Vernon

Assessing the Continuing Competence of Nurses in New Zealand

The enactment of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance (HPCA) Act 2003 in New Zealand heralded a significant change for nurses. A key element of the act is that the regulatory authorities, who exist to protect the public from harm rather than to protect the interests of the profession, ensure that practitioners are competent to practice. Though continuing competence is the responsibility of the individual nurse, the assessment and monitoring of continuing competence is the responsibility of the Nursing Council of New Zealand (NCNZ). Internationally, significant interest in the idea of continuing competence exists; however, research-based evidence to support a particular assessment process is limited. In 2004, the NCNZ implemented a continuing competence framework (CCF). This CCF requires all nurses to complete an annual selfdeclaration of their competence in relation to the relevant standards for registration and verify that they have engaged in at least 60 hours of professional development and at least 450 hours of practice in the 3 preceding years. This article discusses the CCF and its requirements and presents findings from research commissioned by the NCNZ to evaluate the CCF in terms of the process, validity, reliability, and key stakeholder perceptions.

Where is the international variation in the protection of the public? Commentary on Cutcliffe and Forster (2010)

John Cutcliffe’s guest editorial (Cutcliffe and Forster, 0) proposes that the continuing competence requirents of some nursing regulatory bodies to safeguard the lic have limited legitimacy or credibility. This is based examples drawn from two regulatory jurisdictions, the ted Kingdom and British Columbia. Continuing competence and public safety has been a us of the International Council of Nurses (ICN) and ny regulatory authorities for over a decade. Implemenon of credible frameworks for the demonstration and essment of continuing competence is acknowledged as ng a complex issue. A key factor in the successful lementation of such frameworks appears to be related the ‘legislative authority’ of the individual regulatory y and the permissive nature of the legislation (Interional Council of Nurses, 2009). In New Zealand, the enactment of the Health Practiers Competence Assurance Act 2003 (NZ) marked a nge in the regulation of nursing (Vernon et al., 2011). purpose of the Act is ‘‘to protect the health and safety embers of the public by providing for mechanisms to ure that health practitioners are competent and fit to ctise their professions’’ (HPCA Act, 2003, s1). The Act es the regulatory authorities, stipulates their legislafunctions and related requirements, and affords them significant power in relation to setting standards of professional competence, fitness to practice and quality assurance (Vernon et al., 2011). The regulatory authority for nurses in New Zealand is the Nursing Council of New Zealand (NCNZ). Whilst the purpose of occupational regulation in statute is ‘‘to protect the public from harm – physical, mental or financial’’ (Ministry of Ecconomic Development, 2005), the Act also stipulates that the regulatory authority is responsible for the ongoing assessment and monitoring of competence. This does not does not remove the onus of responsibility from individual nurses to ensure they are and continue to be safe competent practitioners, however it did provide the NCNZ the ability to implement a mandatory process for the monitoring assessment and demonstration of continuing competence (Vernon et al., 2010). The Nursing Council of New Zealand Continuing Competence requirements have legitimacy and credibility with the nursing profession in New Zealand. This has been demonstrated by an extensive evaluation of the continuing competence framework commissioned by the Nursing Council of New Zealand in 2009 (Vernon et al., 2010). Of the representative group of New Zealand nurses who were surveyed 76% believed that the continuing competence framework, including the processes to renew annual practicing certificates ‘‘. . .provided the mechanism to ensure nurses are competent and fit to practise’’ (p. 10). Whilst this research and a large body of international literature acknowledge that there are issues related to the assessment and subjectivity of many competence indicators (e.g. Bryant, 2005; Chiarella, 2006; Cowan et al., 2005; EdCaN, 2008; FitzGerald et al., 2001; International Council of Nurses, 2009; Scott Tilley, 2008), there was general consensus from participants that the best indicator of continuing competence was the combination of annual self-assessment/self-declaration of competence, evidence of current practice hours, and demonstration of ongoing professional development. T I C L E I N F O