Letter in response to 'Omission of research in the conceptual model of advanced practice'.

Abstract

Re: Smith T, Harris J, Woznitza N, Maresse S, Sale C. Conceptualisation of the characteristics of advanced practitioners in the medical radiation professions. J Med Radiat Sci 2015; 62(3): 204–11. I am writing in response to the paper ‘Conceptualisation of the characteristics of advanced practitioners in the medical radiation professions’.1 The authors are to be congratulated for this paper which highlights the importance of advanced practice and seeks to establish a conceptual model for advanced practice in the medical radiation professions. I would like to take this opportunity to share my view on the proposed conceptual model. Under the section Gateway Characteristics, Scholarship and Teaching, it is my view that research should be explicitly included as a characteristic of an advanced practitioner. While I agree with the authors that not every advanced practitioner will be actively engaging in research, a key responsibility of the advanced practitioner is to push the professional boundaries via research. To remove ‘research’ from this conceptual model is to inadvertently diminish the importance of research in the advancement of clinical practice. Under the Australian Qualification Framework, research forms an integral part of a Masters degree. An advanced practitioner as depicted in this conceptual model would have successfully completed a substantial piece of research. Research is therefore a familiar concept to the advanced practitioner. To omit research is to remove a key attribute, thereby undermining the success of the advanced practitioner model.