Clinical Site Visits: Perspectives of Clinical Instructors and Site Coordinators of Clinical Education.

ABSTRACT

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 in-person 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.