Australia’s healthcare system is under growing pressure. An ageing population, rising rates of chronic disease, and persistent workforce shortages are stretching health services to their limits. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), the Health Care and Social Assistance industry employed almost 2.1 million people in 2022, nearly 50% more than a decade earlier, yet demand continues to outpace supply (AIHW, 2024).
The Jobs and Skills Australia Skills Priority List 2023 found that more than four in five health professional occupations (82%) were in shortage nationally (JSA, 2023). For healthcare organisations and policymakers, the imperative is clear: investing in workforce development is not optional, but investing wisely is critical. Choosing programs that genuinely deliver results requires a strategic, evidence-informed approach.
Understanding the Landscape: What Makes a Workforce Development Program Effective?
Not all workforce development programs are created equal. Across Australia’s complex, federated healthcare system, where responsibility for funding, training, and service delivery is spread across Commonwealth, state, and territory governments, program fragmentation is a real risk. A 2025 review published in the Medical Journal of Australia analysed 121 federal health workforce policy documents and found substantial fragmentation, with an over-reliance on short-term solutions and inconsistent policy focus across professions and sectors (Topp et al., 2025). This fragmentation means that healthcare organisations must be especially discerning when selecting programs to invest in.
Effective workforce development programs share several defining characteristics. First and foremost, they are aligned with clearly identified workforce gaps. The Australian Department of Health and Aged Care’s National Allied Health Workforce Strategy, currently under development, seeks to address exactly this issue, matching the supply of skilled professionals with current and future community needs, with particular attention to rural and remote regions (Department of Health and Aged Care, 2024). Programs that are designed in response to documented needs, rather than generic upskilling, consistently demonstrate better workforce outcomes.
The Kirkpatrick four-level model
Second, effective programs are built on a robust evaluation framework. The Kirkpatrick four-level model, measuring participant reaction, learning, behavioural change, and tangible results, has been applied successfully in Australian contexts, including in Queensland’s B.strong brief intervention training program for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health workers (Dono et al., 2021). Programs that embed evaluation from the outset are far better positioned to demonstrate return on investment and to iterate based on evidence.
Third, programs that take a contextualised approach to training, adapting content to local community needs, cultural considerations, and the specific roles of participants, tend to outperform those that apply a generic, one-size-fits-all curriculum. The Allied Health Expansion Program in Tasmania, published in Frontiers in Public Health (2023), demonstrated that workforce programs explicitly designed around local population health needs produced professionals with capabilities better suited to metropolitan, regional, rural, and remote settings (Dalton et al., 2023). This is particularly salient given Australia’s geographic diversity and the persistent challenges of delivering care equitably across vast distances.
Choosing the Right Program: Key Questions for Healthcare Organisations
For healthcare managers, HR leaders, and policymakers evaluating workforce development programs, asking the right questions at the outset dramatically increases the likelihood of achieving meaningful outcomes.
Does the program address a demonstrated need?
Any investment in workforce development should begin with a clear articulation of the gap it is intended to close. The AIHW’s Health Workforce Data Tool and the Department of Health and Aged Care’s National Health Workforce Dataset (NHWDS) provide granular, up-to-date data on workforce supply across professions and regions, making it possible to identify specific shortages in nursing, allied health, general practice, and mental health, among others (AIHW, 2024). Programs chosen in direct response to these identified gaps are far more likely to produce measurable impact.
Is there evidence the model works?
Programs that have been independently evaluated and shown to produce lasting results warrant preference. Australia’s Remote Vocational Training Scheme (RVTS), for example, uses a distance education and remote supervision model to support GPs training in rural and remote communities. An independent evaluation conducted in 2023–24 found a 78% program completion rate, with participants remaining in the same rural or remote practice for an average of 5.2 years, well above documented retention benchmarks for these settings (Dunbar et al., 2025).
Does the program support both skill-building and retention?
The Australian Health Review’s 2024 special issue on workforce sustainability highlighted that training programs must go beyond technical skills to address factors that drive staff engagement and retention. Key recommendations included creating agile training opportunities, upskilling senior leaders, and fostering “change champions” within organisations — recognising that workforce capability and workforce culture are deeply interconnected (Hall, 2024). Programs that address both dimensions tend to deliver more sustainable results.
Is the program culturally appropriate and inclusive?
In the Australian context, culturally safe workforce development is not a secondary consideration, it is foundational. Research from the Northern Territory, published in 2024, found that a targeted training program for Aboriginal health workers on chronic hepatitis B management led to sustained improvements in clinical knowledge and care delivery, while also strengthening leadership skills and community empowerment (Schultz et al., 2024). This exemplifies the broader principle that programs which respect and embed cultural safety produce stronger outcomes for both the workforce and the communities they serve.
Can the program scale and be sustained?
Health Workforce Queensland’s GROW Rural suite of programs, which connect health students with rural placements through financial support and targeted engagement, offers a model of scalable, locally anchored workforce development that strengthens the long-term pipeline of rural health professionals (Health Workforce Queensland, 2024). Scalability and sustainability, particularly under funding constraints, should be assessed carefully before committing to any program.
Choosing workforce development programs that deliver real results in healthcare requires more than good intentions, it demands a strategic, evidence-based approach grounded in the realities of Australia’s evolving health system. With over 82% of health professional occupations in shortage nationally, the stakes of poor investment are high. The most effective programs are those that respond to documented workforce gaps, embed rigorous evaluation, build culturally safe and contextually appropriate skills, and support both workforce capability and retention over the long term. As Australia continues to grapple with an ageing population and increasing demand for services, healthcare organisations that invest thoughtfully in workforce development will be best positioned to meet community needs, now and into the future. Contact Healthcare Australia today to discuss workforce development programs that deliver results in healthcare.
References
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2024). Health workforce. Australian Government. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/workforce/health-workforce
- Dalton, L. M., Hills, A. P., Jayasinghe, S., Strong, K., Hyland, P., & Byrne, N. M. (2023). The Allied Health Expansion Program: Rethinking how to prepare a workforce to enable improved public health outcomes. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1119726. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1119726
- Department of Health and Aged Care. (2024). National Allied Health Workforce Strategy. Australian Government. https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/national-allied-health-workforce-strategy
- Dono, J., Ettridge, K., Sharplin, G., Miller, C., Wilson, C., & Wakefield, M. (2021). Evaluation of the B.strong Queensland Indigenous health worker brief intervention training program for multiple health risk behaviours. BMC Health Services Research, 21, 370. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8073127/
- Dunbar, J. A., Battye, K., Burrows, S., et al. (2025). Retention of doctors in remote, rural and First Nations communities using distributed general practice education: a scalable solution. Human Resources for Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12100928/
- Hall, S. (Ed.). (2024). Innovative care models and workforce solutions. Australian Health Review. Australian Healthcare and Hospitals Association. https://ahha.asn.au/australian-health-review-innovative-care-models-and-workforce-solutions/
- Health Workforce Queensland. (2024). Future Workforce Programs: Annual Report 2023–2024. https://www.healthworkforce.com.au/annual-report-2023-2024/annual-report-FutureWorkforcePrograms
- Jobs and Skills Australia (JSA). (2023). Skills Priority List 2023. Australian Government. https://www.jobsandskills.gov.au/data/skills-priority-list
- Schultz, R., Hutton, J., Davies, J., et al. (2024). “Putting the power back into community”: A mixed methods evaluation of a chronic hepatitis B training course for the Aboriginal health workforce of Australia’s Northern Territory. PLOS ONE. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10807824/
- Topp, S. M., Sherriff, S. L., & Greenfield, J. R. (2025). Federal health workforce policy in Australia and its implications: a descriptive policy document review. Medical Journal of Australia, 223(9). https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.70021
