File
Newstead C.1, Johnston C.2, Nisbet G.1, McAllister L.1
1The University of Sydney, Faculty of Health Science, Sydney, Australia, 2The University of Newcastle, School of Health Sciences, Newcastle, Australia
Background: Clinical education is an essential component of physiotherapy training programs, and involves students applying skills and knowledge in 'real-life' situations under the supervision of a registered physiotherapist, commonly referred to as a clinical educator. Clinical educators play an important role in the professional development of physiotherapy students and their skills in clinical instruction and assessment can impact on student learning outcomes and perceptions of clinical placement quality. In Australia the number of physiotherapy students is rising, creating an increasing demand for clinical education experiences. Previous research suggests that physiotherapists are involved in clinical education due to willingness, availability or as a job expectation rather than because of demonstrated skills, experience or training in student clinical education. To ensure quality regarding the provision of clinical education experiences, further research is required to address gaps in published literature regarding: the professional profile of physiotherapists providing clinical education; prior experience in student clinical education; barriers to providing clinical education experiences and perceived training requirements.
Purpose: To develop and validate a survey instrument to explore physiotherapy clinical education in Australia, including: the professional profile of clinical educators; barriers to providing clinical education experiences and training requirements regarding clinical education.
Methods: An initial draft survey instrument was developed by a multiprofessional research team, then reviewed by purposefully selected expert physiotherapists (n=3). Survey items were revised and a second draft created in online format. Academic physiotherapy clinical education managers (n=6) and physiotherapy clinical educators (n=6) were invited to review the second draft of the online survey to ensure face and content validity. Following revision and the creation of a third draft, physiotherapists (n=30) employed in a variety of healthcare facilities and geographical locations participated in pilot testing the revised survey instrument. Data collected from the pilot test were used to evaluate survey utility and its internal consistency.
Results: The final survey instrument consists of 39 questions in five sections: Demographic data; work type and location; experience and opinions regarding physiotherapy clinical education; physiotherapy clinical educator training and general comments. Survey items consist of a combination of closed categorical, Likert and free text response options. Internal consistency of the variables in two survey scale items was acceptable with a Cronbachs alpha of 0.98 and 0.97.
Conclusion(s): A valid and reliable survey instrument has been developed and can be used to profile the professional characteristics of physiotherapy clinical educators in Australia and their experience in student clinical education. The survey will allow for the collection of data regarding barriers to providing clinical education experiences and training requirements of physiotherapists relating to clinical education.
Implications: The developed survey instrument will be used to gather data to address gaps in literature relating to: the professional profile of Australian physiotherapists providing clinical education; their experience in student clinical education and perceived training requirements to enable the provision of quality clinical education experiences. The survey instrument may be adapted and used to explore clinical education in other allied health professions and in international settings in the future.
Funding acknowledgements: No funding was received for this research project.
Topic: Research methodology & knowledge translation
Ethics approval: Ethics approval was received from the Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC), Reference no: LNR/16/HAWKE/147
All authors, affiliations and abstracts have been published as submitted.
