Health Professional Perspectives about the Future of Clinical Education: An ASAHP Clinical Education Committee Report.

In 2018, the Clinical Education Task Force (CETF) of ASAHP presented five recommendations to address clinical education needs. In 2019, the ASAHP Interprofessional Education Task Force (IPTF) established a regional summit for academic and industry constituents to improve health professional education and training. This article describes the steps taken to render a one-day St. Louis regional summit to receive stakeholder feedback on the nationally published recommendations for clinical education. The electronic survey was distributed to potential summit attendees about the CETF recommendations. Data categories captured included demographic details and questions about priorities, use, and engagement with the recommendations, and one open-ended question for each of the recommendations invited respondents to provide feedback. There were 349 respondents: 34% clinical preceptors/coordinators/directors, 31% academic program faculty, and 18% administrators. Common themes included the establishment of common goals between academic programs and healthcare organizations for partnership building, better recognition of the value of interprofessional collaborative practice, and technology as vital to the evolution of the healthcare system. Future directions should include regional summit meetings to address the implementation of the CETF recommendations relative to regional and localized challenges. Consensus-building efforts should address the diversity in responses relative to interprofessional collaborative efforts and clinical education research.

Clinical Education in Transition: Recommendations and Strategies: A Report of the ASAHP Clinical Education Task Force.

The practice models, interdisciplinary team functions, intersecting competencies, economies, and settings of contemporary healthcare are all in flux, demanding that educators reconsider traditional health professions clinical education models and partnerships. The Association of Schools Advancing Health Professions (ASAHP) and Allied Health (AH) deans, collectively and individually, must determine the priorities and strategies to advance AH education. This paper offers five recommendations that stem from a review of literature pertaining to current changes in the healthcare sector and higher education that challenge the availability of AH clinical education. Vetted by AH educators and health system representatives, the recommendations subsume proactive strategies that target factors affecting learning in the clinical environment and aim to meet the needs of patients/clients, employers, students, and educators. The recommendations are: 1) Develop meaningful strategic partnerships with healthcare organizations; 2) Assess and integrate interprofessional competencies for efficient and effective interprofessional practice (IPP); 3) Incorporate effective use of healthcare technology into AH education and practice; 4) Advocate within and among healthcare systems, higher education leadership, accreditation and professional organizations, and governmental agencies to foster and support IPP competencies and effective cross-discipline referrals; 5) Drive excellence in clinical education through promotion of research and scholarly activity.

What Do Faculty in Health Professions Need to be Competent Educators? Results from a School-Wide Needs Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Teaching may be the one responsibility most distinctly identified with being a faculty member, but may be the one for which faculty is least prepared. We performed a needs assessment to understand the educational needs of health professions faculty. METHODS: Faculty completed a survey examining the extent to which they valued and felt competent in 36 education-related skills within six categories, including instructional methods, curriculum development, assessment, instructional design, learners and learning, and diversity and inclusion. Participants rated each item using a 1 (not at all valuable/competent) to 5 (extremely valuable/competent) scale. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of faculty (n=19/20) responded. Value means per topic included diversity and inclusion (4.61±0.65), instructional methods (4.60±0.28), learners and learning (4.60±0.34), assessment (4.54±0.31), instructional design (4.27±0.50), and curriculum development (4.21±0.28). Self-rated competence was highest for diversity and inclusion (4.18±0.76), followed by learners and learning (3.76±0.75), instructional methods (3.73±0.65), assessment (3.22±0.95), curriculum development (3.07±0.88), and instructional design (2.71±0.77). All value/competency comparisons found the value of these skills skills to be significantly greater than competence in that category (p<0.001 for each), with largest discrepancies in instructional design and assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Opportunities exist to improve alignment between valued educator skills and their perceived competency levels in these skills.

Clinical education from a specialized accreditation viewpoint: a report of the ASAHP clinical education task force.

UNLABELLED: Access to clinical education poses national challenges to allied health training programs. Clinical education is paramount to providing future health professionals with experiences that support competencies for success in their individual fields. METHOD: The ASAHP Clinical Education Task Force interviewed 14 executive directors of various specialized accreditation agencies on clinical education issues and opportunities. RESULTS: Interview questions were compiled and analyzed by members of the task force. Similarities across disciplines were found on the high value of clinical education, key reasons for clinical education, and the expansion of interprofessional education. Major differences included the use of simulation and its replacement for clinical hours, measurement of quality of education and student feedback, and the use of portfolio assessment. DISCUSSION: Of 14 professions surveyed, all respondents regarded clinical education as "very important" to student competency and certification. A common theme was that decisions regarding clinical education were under the auspices of the training programs as long as students were able to demonstrate specified competencies as per the standards in each field. Most directors acknowledged the need to accommodate changes in clinical education methodology and some discussed related changes in accreditation requirements. CONCLUSION: The 100% participation by executive directors spoke to the willingness of the accreditation agencies to share information on education of the future healthcare workforce. The clinical education environment is poised for innovation in methods to teach skill development and build competencies. ASAHP partnership and teamwork with specialized accreditation agencies is a fruitful avenue for creating and maintaining excellence in clinical education.

A novel colorectal and cervical cancer education program: findings from the community network for cancer prevention Forum Theater program.

Medically underserved populations continue to be disproportionately burdened by cancer. The exact reason for this disparity has not been fully elucidated, but likely involves multiple factors. We explored the potential utility of a novel community-based cancer education program called Forum Theater (FT), aimed at raising awareness about colorectal (CRC) and cervical cancer (CxC) screening among African-American, Hispanic, and Vietnamese populations. We also determined audience likelihood of obtaining CRC and CxC screening in the 6 months following performances. Thirty FT performances were held between September 2011 and July 2012. A brief survey was administered at each performance, eliciting responses on key CRC and CxC screening questions. A total of 662 community residents (316 Hispanic, 165 African-American, and 181 Vietnamese; overall mean age 50.3 ± 16.4) participated in performances. The survey response rate was 71.1 %. After seeing FT performances, the majority responded correctly (>70 %) on CRC and CxC screening questions. In comparison to Hispanic and Vietnamese participants, African-Americans were less likely to report that CRC and CxC are preventable (p < 0.05), that timely and regular screening saves lives (p = 0.05), and that CxC screening should begin at age 21 for most women (p < 0.05). Our findings suggest that FT may be an effective strategy to disseminate cancer screening information. Lack of awareness that CRC/CxC screening saves lives and that CRC/CxC is preventable, as reported by African-Americans, may not stem from lack of knowledge or misconceptions alone, but may be influenced by a sense of fatalism regarding cancer outcomes in this population.

Self-assessment of cancer competencies and physician assistant cancer education: instrument development and baseline testing.

PURPOSE: Although the benefits of primary and secondary prevention of cancer are well recognized among health care providers, insufficient knowledge or skill often leads to inadequate assessment and management, particularly in the primary care setting. The scant literature on physician assistant (PA) cancer-related competencies suggests that PAs may not be well-prepared in this arena. Thus, curriculum reform in PA education is paramount for improving PAs' abilities to provide cancer risk assessment and management services. The Physician Assistant Cancer Education (PACE) project was designed for such a purpose. Following instrument development, baseline measurement of perceived abilities for cancer-related core competencies was assessed in a representative cohort of PA students. METHODS: Literature search strategies, expert review, and a nationwide survey of PA program directors yielded the 26-item Competencies in Cancer Assessment and Management (C-CAM) instrument. Baseline self-efficacy data were gathered from students across eight PACE-affiliated PA programs. Statistical analysis focused upon instrument quality and comparisons of reported self-efficacy among respondent cohorts. RESULTS: Data were collected from 544 PA students. Overall instrument reliability was excellent (Chronbach's alpha 0.97). Exploratory factor analysis identified three factors explaining 72.83% of response variance. Mean values varied somewhat across institutional cohorts. Clinical students demonstrated higher self-efficacy than preclinical students. CONCLUSIONS: The C-CAM is an effective instrument to assess PA student self-efficacy in cancer prevention, risk assessment, and risk management competencies. Although a trend toward higher self-efficacy was observed among clinical students, further research is required to assess the extent to which reported self-efficacy may be expected to change over time.

Development and implementation of a health behavioral counseling curriculum for physician assistant cancer education.

A health behavioral counseling curriculum grounded in Motivational Interviewing and the Transtheoretical Model of behavior change was developed to enhance knowledge and clinical skill among physician assistant (PA) students in managing cancer risk behaviors. A literature and curriculum review informed course content, teaching strategies, and learning activities. The course was evaluated over two pilot years. Students demonstrated increased knowledge and skills regarding the basic principles of the intervention models. The course was integrated into the pre-clinical year of PA training and will be disseminated, beginning with a faculty development workshop for all PA training programs in Texas, USA.

Educating physician assistants as agents in cancer control: issues and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: Lifestyle factors (eg, smoking, diet) and compliance with screening recommendations play a role in cancer risk, and emerging technologies (eg, new vaccines, genetic testing) hold promise for improved risk management. METHODS: However, optimal outcomes from cancer control efforts require better preparation of health professionals in risk assessment, risk communication, and implementing health behavioral change strategies that are vitally important to cancer control. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Although physician assistants (PAs) are substantively engaged in cancer-related service delivery in primary care settings, few models exist to facilitate integration of cancer control learning experiences into the curricula used in intense, fast-paced, 24- to 30-month PA training programs.