Supervision of Occupational Therapy Level II Fieldwork Students: Impact on and Predictors of Clinician Productivity

Abstract

This study aimed to determine whether a difference in productivity exists between clinicians supervising and not supervising a Level II occupational therapy student and whether factors including clinician years of experience, practice setting, and clinician productivity without a student could predict clinician productivity while supervising a student. We used paired-sample t tests to examine clinician productivity with and without a student in 109 clinician-student encounters and regression analysis to determine factors predictive of clinician productivity with a student. Results indicated no difference in clinician productivity with or without a student. Clinician years of experience, practice area, and productivity without a student were significant predictors of clinician productivity while supervising a student. Study results contradict the belief that supervising Level II fieldwork students lowers clinicians' productivity. Findings suggest that practice area and productivity without a student are important factors influencing the productivity of clinicians supervising a fieldwork student.

Implementing the 2:1 student placement model in occupational therapy: Strategies for practice

“…In addition, as outlined in the literature, this study reveals there were a number of opportunities particularly in relation to student learning through problem‐based and peer learning approaches, which provided mutual support between students and, with time, less dependency on supervisors in some cases (Aiken et al ., ; Baldry Currens & Bithell, ; Blakely et al ., ; Daniels, ; Flood et al ., ; Gallagher & Cahill, ; Martin & Edwards, ; Martin et al ., ). Ozelie, Janow, Kreutz, Mulry and Penkala () report that clinical years of experience, practice area and productivity without a student are predictors for therapist productivity while supervising a student. Although their study did not explore the challenges of 2:1 placement models, therapists who were in acute health practice areas and had longer clinical experience reported that their productivity was not affected.…”

Comparison of paired and single clinical placement models: a time‐use analysis

“…, Ozelie et al . ). These studies have provided useful contributions, though each has had its limitations related to small sample sizes or low response rates; narrowly defined definitions of productivity which have failed to account for 100% of CE and student time; and/or problematic treatment of CE–student team data which has not taken into consideration the time that CEs and students may have spent engaged in joint working.…”

“…In the case of benefits for student learning, much has been written about the pairedplacement model (Baldry Currens and Bithell 2003, DeClute and Ladyshewsky 1993, O'Connor et al 2012, Dawes and Lambert 2010, Briffa and Porter 2013. In the case of the latter, there is much still to learn (Rodger et al 2011, Ozelie et al 2015, Sevenhuysen et al 2017.…”

“…In relation to the effects of student placements on healthcare service delivery and productivity, studies from physical and occupational therapy, and nutrition and dietetics professions have been informative. There is evidence to indicate that the presence of students, regardless of placement model (single, paired or nonspecified), either increases patient-related productivity (defined as occasions of service and/or time engaged in patient care) (Dillon et al 2003, Ladyshewsky 1995, Ladyshewsky et al 1998, Ash et al 2015 or does not cause a significant change (Rodger et al 2011, Ozelie et al 2015. These studies have provided useful contributions, though each has had its limitations related to small sample sizes or low response rates; narrowly defined definitions of productivity which have failed to account for 100% of CE and student time; and/or problematic treatment of CE-student team data which has not taken into consideration the time that CEs and students may have spent engaged in joint working.…”

Pennsylvania Occupational Therapy Fieldwork Educator Practices and Preferences in Clinical Education

“…Difficulty articulating professional reasoning from theory to practice is reported among occupational therapists in the literature (Kinn & Aas, 2009) and may contribute to a perception by students that a disconnect exists between the classroom and practice (Elliot, Velde, & Wittman, 2002;Towns & Ashby, 2014). Additional barriers to fieldwork educators' ability to provide quality supervision include large caseloads, limited resources, and high standards for productivity (Ozelie, Janow, Kreutz, Mulry, & Penkala, 2015). An increased understanding of the components of quality fieldwork education may enhance student learning and professional socialization.…”