Search

Introduction. Effective academic-clinical partnerships require a greater understanding of how academic programs can best support clinical education (CE) faculty. This study aimed to determine resources and support that clinical partners need. Review of Literature. As the number of physical therapist (PT) programs, cohort sizes, and CE weeks have risen, so has demand for CE sites. Conversely, staffing reductions, increased administrative duties, and rising productivity expectations have decreased the time available for clinical instruction. To promote a successful CE experience, there must be a renewed understanding of CE faculty needs. Subjects. Clinical education faculty affiliated with any of the 8 contributing programs from the Ohio-Kentucky Consortium participated in survey research (n = 24) and subsequent interview (n = 4) and focus group (n = 6) research. Methods. Constructivist grounded theory design was used to explore the needs of CE faculty. Academic and clinical partners developed the initial survey and used survey results to establish interview questions. The investigators iteratively assessed data saturation and clarity of results of coded survey, interview, and focus group data to determine whether the study's aims of identifying CE faculty needs had been met. Results. The aggregated results yielded 5 main themes of Director of Clinical Education support for CE faculty needs: student readiness for CE experience; effective academic-clinical partner communication; collaborative management of exceptional students; judicious standardization of CE processes; and provision of CE faculty development resources. Discussion and Conclusion. Clinical education faculty have noted challenges that affect their ability to mentor students. They want academic programs to be more collaborative and proactive with communication, resources, and support. Future research should address aids and barriers to proactive communication, resource provision, and academic-clinical partner collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction.: Although the provision of clinical education (CE) experiences affords many benefits to clinical stakeholders, little published literature exists regarding the factors influencing decisions of site coordinators of CE (SCCE), clinical administrators, and clinical instructors (CI) to provide CE. Review of Literature.: Site coordinators of CE and CIs navigate workplace expectations while making decisions about their engagement in CE experiences. The purpose of this study was to determine clinical stakeholders' perceptions of facilitators and barriers to the provision of CE experiences for entry-level Doctor of Physical Therapy students. Subjects.: This study used survey data from a previous study on perspectives related to payment for CE experiences. The survey questions analyzed included responses provided by 501 clinical administrators, 445 SCCEs, and 657 CIs. Methods.: Retrospective analysis of survey data included frequencies and percentages of responses for nominal and categorical data. Open-ended survey questions underwent content analysis to identify overarching concepts and subordinate categories. Results.: Clinicians are most motivated to serve as CIs by "enjoyment of teaching" (274, 49.4%) and a sense of "professional responsibility" (147, 26.5%). Site coordinators of CEs indicated that the top challenges faced in soliciting CIs were the ability to manage challenging students (347, 69.0%), lack of experience serving as a CI (227, 63.4%), ability to maintain productivity standards (220, 61.5%), and clinician burnout (219, 61.2%). Although all participants agreed that their organization promotes a culture of teaching, clinical administrators agreed at a higher percentage than SCCEs (97.8% vs 94.3%, respectively). Discussion and Conclusion.: Clinical instructors identified values and benefits that were, at times, in contrast to the organizational culture. The discrepancies in perceptions among stakeholders that were uncovered by this research provide a unique lens that has not been addressed in the literature to date. To provide meaningful support for CIs, it is imperative that directors of CEs, clinical administrators, and SCCEs clearly understand the perceptions of the CI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Review of Literature.: Physical therapist (PT) and PT assistant (PTA) education programs have historically required preadmission observation hours (ObHr) as an admission requirement. The variability of conditions surrounding ObHr lends itself to investigation. The aims of this study were to (1) identify the perceived value of ObHr to Admission Committee (AC) members, Directors of Clinical Education, current Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) students, and PT clinicians, (2) examine the effect that ObHr have on the decision-making process of AC members, and (3) examine the effect that ObHr had on current DPT students' decisions to pursue a PT career. Subjects.: Four stakeholder groups were targeted (N = 4,471). Methods.: This descriptive, cross-sectional study utilized surveys to collect quantitative and qualitative data through closed-ended and open-ended questions. This article encompasses the analysis of the quantitative components by analyzing fixed responses on stakeholder surveys. Qualitative findings are reported in a separate article. Results.: Perceived purposes of ObHr by stakeholders were as follows: (1) to gain an accurate understanding of the depth and breadth of the profession, (2) to confirm a desire to pursue PT as a profession, and (3) to better understand the roles and responsibilities of PT. The number of necessary ObHr varied among the groups ranging from 0 to 100 hours. Student perception that completing more hours than required would assist in their favorability for acceptance was debunked. Discussion.: There was consensus among all groups regarding the perceived purposes. Variability of stakeholder perception of necessary ObHr to achieve goals was revealed. Doctor of Physical Therapy programs should be transparent and clarify the purpose and quantity of required ObHr. Conclusion.: Long-standing requirements could be taxing current resources and limiting entry into the profession. Determining the minimum number of necessary ObHr, considering virtual methods, and employing distinct transparency on how ObHr are used in the decision-making process are opportunities for further study to address these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction.: Inclusion of preadmission observation hours (ObHr) as one component of the admissions process is commonly required in physical therapy education programs. The purpose of this study was to describe the value and impact of ObHr on 4 key stakeholder groups: doctor of physical therapy students, physical therapy clinicians, directors of clinical education, and admissions committee (AC) members. Review of Literature.: The number of required and/or recommended ObHr and practice settings varies greatly. No previous study has explored a national dataset of key stakeholders' perspectives on ObHr experiences. Subjects.: Four key stakeholder groups were targeted in the study (N = 4,471). Methods.: Four stakeholder surveys were developed and distributed via email using a snowball sampling technique. Responses to the open-ended questions were analyzed using conventional content analysis for creating codes, categories, and themes within and across groups. Results.: Five main themes emerged: 1) ObHr have value in career decision making; 2) students driven by hours, but all stakeholders value variety; 3) use of ObHr for program admissions decisions varies; 4) as the number of hours and settings increase, so do the challenges for students; and 5) there is interest in developing alternative ObHr experiences. Discussion and Conclusion.: There was consensus among all stakeholder groups regarding ObHr's value for exploring the profession of physical therapy and helping applicants determine if the profession is a good fit. Respondents highlighted the value of observing in a variety of practice settings. Perspectives differed between AC members and students regarding the impact of ObHr on admissions decision making. Students reported a variety of personal and organizational challenges associated with ObHr completion. Physical therapy programs should reexamine their current ObHr practices and consider alternative methods that support all applicants in their pursuit of a career in physical therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]