Completing training and building an organisation’s ability to use knowledge are different questions. A review by Kowshik, Chew and Lee offers a useful management-research perspective on that distinction.

What the researchers examined

The authors reviewed knowledge-management research in international organisational settings. Their meta-analysis of knowledge transfer included 28 studies and 9,043 participants. They found associations with organisational learning, the capacity to absorb knowledge, and innovation.

What the findings do not establish

Twenty-five of the 28 studies were cross-sectional. These associations do not by themselves establish cause and effect. The review was not a trial of clinical skills training, patient outcomes or HALO, and should not be cited as proof that a particular training model improves clinical safety.

Questions for a training lead

As a practical reflection, ask how learning is shared, how current materials are retained, and what support helps people apply knowledge in their own setting. These are VeinTrain’s programme-design questions prompted by the review, rather than clinical recommendations made by its authors.

Course completion, workplace assessment and final competency sign-off remain separate. An organisation needs evidence appropriate to each decision.

Source: Kowshik, Chew and Lee (2025), Knowledge transfer as a dynamic capability: a meta-analysis of its impact on organizational outcomes in international contexts. The authors report no potential conflict of interest. The article links to the research; it does not reproduce its figures. VeinTrain commentary is Level 3 contextual interpretation, with non-clinical research limits retained.

Explore Clinical & Learning Toolkits | Why certificates and clinical competency are different | Explore HALO for organisations