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]

Background Clinical education curricular models specifically related to integrated clinical education (ICE) vary across physical therapist education programs. The interconnectedness of ICE to the advancement of a shared vision for clinical education in professional physical therapist education needs investigating. Purpose The purpose of this scoping review was to: (1) define ICE, (2) define baseline expectations and parameters of ICE, and (3) discern and describe current ICE models. Data Sources Databases accessed included Medline, MedlinePlus with Full, CINAHL, and CINAHL Plus with full text. Study Selection A multimodal data collection scoping review was completed. Data collection included survey research, a systematic review of the literature, and a series of focus groups. The McMaster Critical Appraisal Tool assessed methodological study quality. A qualitative, metasynthesis approach was used for data synthesis. Consensus agreement produced results. Data Extraction Twenty-two articles were included in the literature review from the health disciplines of medicine, nursing, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech-language pathology. Data synthesis produced 8 parameters defining the factors essential to categorizing clinical education experiences as ICE in physical therapist education. The 8 parameters and ICE definition are supported by a description of models of ICE that currently exist within health profession curricula. Data Synthesis Data synthesis followed a qualitative, metasynthesis approach. Themes emerged from the surveys, literature review, and focus group data. Patterns were compared, analyzed, and synthesized to generate the themes and ICE parameters. Limitations Selection bias from the literature search could have limited the richness of the model descriptions by unintentional exclusion of articles, and might limit the applicability of results beyond the United States. Sampling bias from survey and focus groups, although purposeful, might have limited a broader description of current viewpoints about ICE. However, the data sources, including multiple health profession perspectives coupled with consensus agreement, provide sound evidence in development of profession-based parameters. Conclusions The results of this scoping review provide the profession with a standard definition of ICE and parameters that can guide a program in designing a curriculum using ICE experiences as a foundation. A recommended next step is to design education research studies using reliable and valid outcome measures across programs to determine impact and effectiveness of ICE as an educational intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Issue: Allied health students, programs, sponsoring institutions, and accreditors have a vested interest in supporting high graduation rates and minimizing attrition due to academic and non-academic causes. After experiencing a higher than expected attrition rate due to academic failure, family and health issues, Mount St Joseph University (MSJ) Physical Therapy and Entry-level Master Nursing Programs examined the graduate professional students' unique needs to assure student retention, graduation and professional licensing. More than 50% of students reported feeling overwhelmed, exhausted, and stressed about academic performance on the 2015 National College Health Assessment. We hypothesized that an interprofessional (IP) orientation program, Pathways to Graduate School Success, could better prepare students for transition to graduate school. Method: Incoming DPT and MSN students will complete four IP sessions with a trained facilitator to discuss identified transitional issues and strategies. Outcomes: Students will complete pre- and post- surveys: Coping Schema Inventory, Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), and a Pathways feedback survey. GPA, admission scores and identified academic or professional difficulties will also be assessed. Conclusions: De-identified data will be aggregated by cohort. Correlational statistics will examine relationships between independent variables and the Pathways series with follow-up factor analysis and logistic regression analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: The 2014 Clinical Education (CE) Summit and subsequent scholarly work prompted development of collaborative, mutually beneficial, innovative processes to mitigate CE challenges and inefficiencies. Contemporary practice advocates for collaboration among physical therapist (PT) academic programs (Programs) and clinical partners (Partners) to create a sustainable placement process with mutual benefits for stakeholders. The purpose of this article is to describe the design and implementation of the Ohio Kentucky Consortium of Physical Therapy Educators (Consortium) Consortium Core Network's (CCN) centralized PT CE Placement Process (PT-CEPP) model and share participants' experience perspectives., Methods/model Description and Evaluation: The Consortium established the CCN and a Steering Committee, representing stakeholders, and designed a novel 5-phase centralized PT-CEPP model, in Exxat, an educational management platform. The phases included Request, Offer, Placement, Reallocation, and Confirmation and Release. A postimplementation Qualtrics survey was disseminated to obtain participant perspectives. Open-text survey responses were compiled, reviewed, thematically analyzed, and presented in this article (part 1). The resulting quantitative CCN PT-CEPP analyses were deferred to a companion article (part 2)., Outcomes: The CCN participation included invited Partners (n = 101/364; 28%) and Programs (n = 14/14; 100%). During initial PT-CEPP implementation, 1,005 offers resulted in 549 CE placements. Participant perspectives from 20 of 101 SCCEs (20%) and eight of 14 DCEs (57%) were dichotomized into "Benefits and What Worked Well" and "Challenges and What Did Not Work Well." Perspectives were unique to participant roles, with partners valuing "centralization" and Programs "process.", Discussion and Conclusions: Lessons gleaned from the PT-CEPP paradigm shift to a CCN-centralized model may optimize processes and improve sustainability with future iterations., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Academy of Physical Therapy Education, APTA.)

Background and Purpose: It has been suggested that capacity for physical therapy clinical education (CE) experiences is limited; however, data remain unavailable. Regional CE networks have been suggested and may facilitate data collection and management of capacity issues. The Ohio Kentucky Consortium of Physical Therapy Programs developed a Consortium Core Network (CCN) from shared partnerships and implemented a centralized placement process. The purpose of this case report is to begin to describe the capacity of one regional consortium in terms of its demand, supply, and utilization of CE experiences., Case Description: A centralized placement process was implemented in 2022 using Exxat while retaining autonomy for sites and programs. Sites affiliated with 2 or more of the Consortium's 14 physical therapist academic programs (n = 364) were invited to participate, with 101 opting in. Academic programs maintained their individual processes with nonparticipants., Outcomes: Data obtained provide a description of regional CE capacity for 2023. Demand was 2353 CE experiences; total supply obtained was 4,193, with 19% offered on a "first-come, first-served" basis and 24% obtained through the CCN. Within the centralized process, all academic programs received offers. Outpatient (66%) and terminal experiences (42%) were most plentiful. Overall utilization of CCN offers was 54%, with greater use of inpatient (82%), first (68%), and program-specific (63%) offers., Discussion and Conclusion: This collaborative process provided novel data valuable in understanding regional physical therapist CE capacity. Although the total supply obtained seems to exceed demand, alignment between offer type (level, setting, "first-come, first-served" designation) and needs of individual programs and students must be considered further., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Academy of Physical Therapy Education, APTA.)

Background: Data management (DM) systems represent an opportunity for innovation in education and data-driven decision-making (DDDM) in allied health education. Understanding clinical education (CE) DM systems in entry-level physical therapy (PT) education programs could provide valuable insight into structure and operation and may represent opportunities to address CE challenges. The purpose of this study is to describe how PT programs are using CE DM systems to inform recommendations for CE DM and support knowledge sharing and DDDM., Subjects: CE faculty and administrators were recruited from entry-level PT education programs to participate in a cross-sectional survey., Methods: The authors designed a novel survey which included demographics and use of CE DM systems. Descriptive statistics and content analysis of narrative data were used to examine responses., Results: The survey was distributed to 220 academic PT programs in June 2021 with 111 respondents (50% response rate). Respondents use multiple systems to complete CE tasks (e.g., placement process, on-boarding, agreement tracking, as a CE site database). Forty-three percent (n=47) use one system, 76% (n=35) of those use the same Software as a Service vendor. Eighty-six percent (n=96) are satisfied with their current CE DM system. Respondents enter data related to CE site information, CE environment, length of the CE experience, and accreditation-required clinical instructor information. Ninety-four percent (n=93) and 70% (n=70) extract data to make decisions about the placement process and curriculum, respectively., Conclusion: While variability across CE DM systems presents a challenge, survey respondents indicated common practices related to functionality, data entry, and extraction. Clinical education DM systems house critical data to address challenges in CE. Strategies to improve accessibility and use of this data to support DDDM should be explored.