Search

Introduction. Site visits (SVs) are a common component of clinical education. The purpose of this paper was to explore clinicians' perspectives regarding SVs, including methods of communication used and their effectiveness, purposes of SVs, and the level of interaction between the stakeholders. Review of the Literature. Several communication methods are used to conduct SVs, with varying levels of "richness" and effectiveness. Previous studies have explored the perceptions of physical therapist (PT) students and Directors of Clinical Education regarding communication methods used during SVs, as well as reporting the purposes, effectiveness, and logistics. Subjects. Clinicians, including clinical instructors (CIs) and Site Coordinators of Clinical Education, from across the United States, representing various geographical locations and settings were invited to participate. Methods. An electronic survey was distributed to participants using information from 2 PT education programs and the Physical Therapist Clinical Performance Instrument database. Results. A total of 273 responses were included in the analysis. Clinicians ranked in-person visits as their first choice of communication for future SVs (n = 157, 59.9%) and indicated that inperson communication was "very effective" (n = 143, 52.4%) when compared with videoconferencing (n = 55, 20.1%) and telephone (n = 49, 17.9%). Clinicians ranked verifying the competency level of the student and verifying site resources during the SV as "extremely important" or "important" (n = 257, 94.2% and n = 250, 91.5%, respectively). Answering CI's questions and providing support to the CI were also identified as "extremely important" or "important" (n = 262, 96% and n = 244, 89.4%, respectively). Analysis of open-ended responses revealed 5 themes: Communication is important, flexibility allows best fit for a situation, on-site visits offer a more complete picture, real-time dialog is preferred, and email can lead to misinterpretation. Discussion and Conclusion. Communication is a key component of the clinical-academic relationship. Although clinicians prefer in-person communication, flexibility is necessary when planning and conducting SVs. Future research recommendations include gathering student and clinician perceptions regarding faculty involvement in SVs, as well as gathering faculty perspectives regarding their participation in SVs. In addition, the impact of the pandemic on the future of SVs warrants further exploration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction.: The physical therapy (PT) profession has cited a need for education research, yet the needs of researchers are not fully understood. Furthermore, there continues to be a limited understanding of where resources are most needed to support and advance education research. The purpose of this study was to identify barriers and opportunities for education research to support PT faculty. Review of Literature.: Scholarly productivity may be related to the attainment of an academic doctoral degree, research culture within an institution, and faculty time devoted to research. There is a lack of knowledge about what factors relate to the production of education research and the types of support needed for education researchers. Subjects.: Two hundred sixteen PT education researchers. Methods.: An open survey invitation was sent through email through the American Council of Academic Physical Therapy newsletter. A multiple regression analysis was used to determine factors that were associated with scholarly productivity of education researchers in PT. Open responses to a question regarding needed resources for engagement in education research were qualitatively analyzed. Results.: The multiple regression analysis yielded a large effect (R2 = 0.31), demonstrating that faculty years of experience, faculty rank, and having an academic doctoral degree were correlated with scholarly productivity. "Faculty time/workload" was considered "very important" or higher to the production of education research by 87% of respondents. This item was rated of highest importance on the survey. Mentorship was considered the most important external resource, with 69% of respondents rating it as "very important" or higher, whereas "other personal commitments (ie, family care, household management, other community-related volunteer commitments)" was the most important personal factor (rated by 70% of the respondents as "very important" or higher). Open-ended responses further suggest that institution logistics, appropriate dissemination venues, and funding are areas of need to foster success in engaging in education research. Discussion and Conclusion.: Results highlight challenges and opportunities for resource investment in education research. Among these are time and funding. Existing professional networking and educational opportunities need to be continually evaluated for their effectiveness. Further development should focus on mitigating these barriers while considering the logistics of the researcher's institution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text. Introduction.: Several studies have investigated stakeholder perspectives regarding clinical site visits (SVs). An SV is one of the many ways of building strong relationships through collaborative communication. This study explored perceptions of directors of clinical education (DCEs) about why SVs are important, why they prefer certain methods of communication over others, and how they prioritize their decision-making process regarding structure and communication methods used. Literature Review.: Barriers to conducting SVs exist, including scheduling challenges, time, and cost. Some studies suggest preferences for using in-person communication. Subjects.: Fifteen DCEs from across the United States. Methods.: Subjects participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach and thematic analysis. Results.: Six themes emerged from the data: (1) communication is vital, (2) SVs are fact-finding missions that serve multiple purposes, (3) flexibility is essential, (4) showing up in person has a strong impact, (5) DCEs strategically schedule in-person SVs, and (6) faculty assistance can be valuable. Some of the purposes of an SV include learning about the clinic's expectations, gathering data to ensure that the student is having a good experience, keeping current with curricular trends and contemporary practice, and building and nurturing relationships. Faculty may be able to assist in conducting SVs when properly trained. In-person SVs show a powerful message of support to students and clinicians. Discussion and conclusion.: Similar to other stakeholders, DCEs value SVs for building, maintaining, and strengthening clinical and academic relationships. Site visits also bridge curricular gaps, support stakeholders, and help DCEs do their job. Directors of clinical education are strategic when considering SV structure, communication methods, and prioritizing student and clinician needs. Results were used in conjunction with prior findings of our mixed-methods explanatory sequential study to create recommendations, which will empower DCEs to advocate for resources to continue conducting SVs, particularly in-person SVs, especially under certain circumstances. Future research should explore clinician perspectives, specifically related to preferred communication methods, structure of the SV, and meeting with faculty other than the DCE. [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: Biophysical agents (BPA) are adjuncts to care plans prescribed by physical therapists to patients in clinic. Recent statements by the American Physical Therapy Association caution usage of certain BPAs. Currently, information is lacking as to which BPAs are available and utilized in physical therapy settings in the United States, rationale for inclusion of BPAs in patient care plans and perceptions of importance of inclusion in a DPT curriculum. Objectives: A survey was sent out to 520 physical therapists in the United States (response rate 25%) Major Findings: Over 80% of respondents reported access to BPAs and of those, 92% used BPAs with patients. The most commonly used BPAs were cold packs, hot packs, and varied applications of electrical stimulation, while mechanical compression and diathermy were least frequently used. The most common rationale for BPA use was prior positive experience. Respondents’ perceptions of importance of inclusion of specific BPAs in a DPT curriculum mirrored some of the clinical usage patterns found in this study. Conclusions: BPAs are widely available and utilized in physical therapy practice in the United States. Rationale for clinician use of BPAs includes both prior positive experience- and evidence-based practice. Results from this study suggest the importance of BPAs in DPT curriculum to ensure safe and appropriate use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stakeholders in health science education engage in site visits during student clinical education experiences, which may occur in person or remotely via videoconference, telephone, or email. Significant variability in practice highlights the need for a more consistent approach to conducting site visits based on evidence-based best practices. Site visits can be burdensome to both clinical and academic stakeholders considering the significant time and resources needed to conduct them effectively. Despite these obstacles, site visits have been shown to add value to the clinical experience for all parties involved. This paper presents the available literature in health science education regarding clinical site visits and describes how it was used to develop and implement a model of best practice for conducting clinical site visits in physical therapist education. The Site Visit Decision-Making Model is based upon findings from contemporary research exploring the interests of each stakeholder, as well as the multifaceted and purposeful decision-making process that takes place when conducting site visits in physical therapist clinical education. Implementation of this model may assist academic stakeholders in health science education in prioritizing which methods of communication for conducting site visits are most effective and efficient.