Clinical Education Data Management: Current Landscape in Entry-Level Physical Therapist Education.

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.

An Exploration of Support for Clinical Education Partners.

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.

Facilitators and Barriers to Providing Clinical Education Experiences Through the Lens of Clinical Stakeholders.

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.

The Integrated Clinical Education Strategic Initiatives Project-Development of Parameters to Guide Harmonization in Clinical Education: A Scoping Review.

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.