The Clinical Site Visit: Perspectives of Physical Therapist Students

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 58%

mentioning

confidence: 49%

“…However, the qualitative results demonstrated that on-site visits improved perceptions of communication, and this is in line with previous research findings. 7,8,19,20…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of On-Site Visits From the Physical Therapy Clinical Instructor Perspective: A Mixed-Methods Approach

Palmer

Rapport

2022

“…8 Literature supporting the preferred communication method for conducting SVs in physical therapy education programs is limited, although a recent study found that PTS prefer that SVs be conducted in-person when possible, and especially when difficulties occur during the CEE. 9…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Site Visits: Exploring the Perspectives of the Director of Clinical Education

Greco

Hochman

Jung

et al. 2021

Self Cite

Introduction. Best practice in clinical education (CE) includes the formation of strong relationships through collaborative communication among all stakeholders. Directors of Clinical Education (DCEs) may establish this through a site visit (SV) during student CE experiences (CEEs) but several barriers to conducting SVs have been identified, including scheduling of visits, time, and cost. There is sparse literature describing the DCEs most preferred method of communication when conducting SVs. This study explored whether DCEs perceive SVs as important, their preferred method of communication used to conduct these SVs, and the reasons underlying these preferences. Methods. A survey of both scaled and open-ended questions was sent to 300 DCEs/assistant DCEs from Commission on Accreditations in Physical Therapy Education accredited Physical Therapy programs. The response rate was 41%. Results. Statistical analysis showed DCE preference for in-person SVs over other forms of communication while also rating them as “very effective.” Directors of Clinical Education indicated that the primary purposes of an SV are to nurture academic–clinical relationships and to exchange information. In-person SVs offer a more complete picture of the CEE and allow the DCE to observe non-verbal cues that are not afforded by other types of communication. The recent pandemic has caused a shift to an increased use of videoconferencing for SVs. The DCEs acknowledged that there is no “one size fits all” approach to the SV process. Discussion and Conclusion. Similar to students, DCEs prefer and value in-person communication for SVs but are mindful that clinician preferences warrant a degree of flexibility in communication methods and the structure of the SV. Videoconferencing may be an alternative during circumstances when an in-person SV is not possible. Future research in this area should explore the clinician perspective.

Assessing Effectiveness of Physical Therapy Clinical Education Site Visits: Clinical Instructor and Student Perspectives

Lewis

Lesser

Folkins

2023

Introduction. Video, phone, or in-person site visits are used to assess clinical education in entry-level physical therapy education programs. The perspectives of students and clinical instructors (CIs) related to site visits were examined in this article using 2 consecutive surveys. The first included items related to in-person and phone call site visits. The second added video calls. The research purpose was to assess the CI and student perspectives on the effectiveness of site visits and explore the differences between in-person, video, and phone visits. Review of Literature. Published literature about the effectiveness of site visits is scarce. Two recent articles explored the director of clinical education and student perspectives of site visits. Future research concentrating on the clinician perspective of site visits was recommended. Subjects. A convenience sample of 104 CIs and 97 doctor of physical therapy students were recruited by email for the 2 surveys. Methods. A mixed-methods, triangular, validating, quantitative data model was used. Respondents answered open-ended questions and rated items on 5-point Likert scales. Descriptive and chi-square statistics were calculated, and themes were developed using qualitative analysis. Results. No significant difference was found in preference of site visit method between students and CIs. CIs rated the effectiveness of site visits similarly for all methods. Students rated in-person site visits as the most effective in the first survey and video calls as the most effective in the second survey. Qualitative analysis showed that CIs and students preferred in-person visits when the student was struggling. Considering closed-ended and open-ended questions on both surveys, CIs and students would rather meet individually with the faculty member. Discussion and Conclusion. The results of this study suggest that any type of site visit can be effective; in-person visits should be considered when students are struggling, and the site visitor should meet privately with the student and CI.