The “How” and “Why” Behind Clinical Site Visits: A Qualitative Study Exploring Director of Clinical Education Perspectives

Jamie L. Greco, Lori Hochman, Nicki Silberman
{"title":"The “How” and “Why” Behind Clinical Site Visits: A Qualitative Study Exploring Director of Clinical Education Perspectives","authors":"Jamie L. Greco, Lori Hochman, Nicki Silberman","doi":"10.1097/jte.0000000000000298","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Several studies have investigated stakeholder perspectives regarding clinical site visits (SVs). An SV is one of the many ways of building strong relationships through collaborative communication. This study explored perceptions of directors of clinical education (DCEs) about why SVs are important, why they prefer certain methods of communication over others, and how they prioritize their decision-making process regarding structure and communication methods used.\n \n \n \n Barriers to conducting SVs exist, including scheduling challenges, time, and cost. Some studies suggest preferences for using in-person communication.\n \n \n \n Fifteen DCEs from across the United States.\n \n \n \n Subjects participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach and thematic analysis.\n \n \n \n Six themes emerged from the data: (1) communication is vital, (2) SVs are fact-finding missions that serve multiple purposes, (3) flexibility is essential, (4) showing up in person has a strong impact, (5) DCEs strategically schedule in-person SVs, and (6) faculty assistance can be valuable. Some of the purposes of an SV include learning about the clinic's expectations, gathering data to ensure that the student is having a good experience, keeping current with curricular trends and contemporary practice, and building and nurturing relationships. Faculty may be able to assist in conducting SVs when properly trained. In-person SVs show a powerful message of support to students and clinicians.\n \n \n \n Similar to other stakeholders, DCEs value SVs for building, maintaining, and strengthening clinical and academic relationships. Site visits also bridge curricular gaps, support stakeholders, and help DCEs do their job. Directors of clinical education are strategic when considering SV structure, communication methods, and prioritizing student and clinician needs. Results were used in conjunction with prior findings of our mixed-methods explanatory sequential study to create recommendations, which will empower DCEs to advocate for resources to continue conducting SVs, particularly in-person SVs, especially under certain circumstances. Future research should explore clinician perspectives, specifically related to preferred communication methods, structure of the SV, and meeting with faculty other than the DCE.\n","PeriodicalId":91351,"journal":{"name":"Journal, physical therapy education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal, physical therapy education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/jte.0000000000000298","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Several studies have investigated stakeholder perspectives regarding clinical site visits (SVs). An SV is one of the many ways of building strong relationships through collaborative communication. This study explored perceptions of directors of clinical education (DCEs) about why SVs are important, why they prefer certain methods of communication over others, and how they prioritize their decision-making process regarding structure and communication methods used. Barriers to conducting SVs exist, including scheduling challenges, time, and cost. Some studies suggest preferences for using in-person communication. Fifteen DCEs from across the United States. Subjects participated in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using a grounded theory approach and thematic analysis. Six themes emerged from the data: (1) communication is vital, (2) SVs are fact-finding missions that serve multiple purposes, (3) flexibility is essential, (4) showing up in person has a strong impact, (5) DCEs strategically schedule in-person SVs, and (6) faculty assistance can be valuable. Some of the purposes of an SV include learning about the clinic's expectations, gathering data to ensure that the student is having a good experience, keeping current with curricular trends and contemporary practice, and building and nurturing relationships. Faculty may be able to assist in conducting SVs when properly trained. In-person SVs show a powerful message of support to students and clinicians. Similar to other stakeholders, DCEs value SVs for building, maintaining, and strengthening clinical and academic relationships. Site visits also bridge curricular gaps, support stakeholders, and help DCEs do their job. Directors of clinical education are strategic when considering SV structure, communication methods, and prioritizing student and clinician needs. Results were used in conjunction with prior findings of our mixed-methods explanatory sequential study to create recommendations, which will empower DCEs to advocate for resources to continue conducting SVs, particularly in-person SVs, especially under certain circumstances. Future research should explore clinician perspectives, specifically related to preferred communication methods, structure of the SV, and meeting with faculty other than the DCE.
临床实地考察背后的“如何”和“为什么”:一项探讨临床教育主任观点的定性研究
几项研究调查了利益相关者对临床现场访问(SV)的看法。SV是通过协作沟通建立牢固关系的多种方式之一。这项研究探讨了临床教育主管(DCEs)对SVs为什么重要的看法,为什么他们更喜欢某些沟通方法而不是其他沟通方法,以及他们如何优先考虑所使用的结构和沟通方法的决策过程。进行SV存在障碍,包括日程安排挑战、时间和成本。一些研究表明,人们更喜欢使用面对面交流。来自美国各地的15名DCE。受试者参加了一对一的半结构化访谈。转录本采用扎根理论方法和主题分析法进行分析。数据中出现了六个主题:(1)沟通至关重要,(2)支持向量是服务于多个目的的实况调查任务,(3)灵活性至关重要,(4)亲自出席具有强大的影响力,(5)DCE战略性地安排亲自支持向量,以及(6)教师援助可能很有价值。SV的一些目的包括了解诊所的期望,收集数据以确保学生有良好的体验,了解课程趋势和当代实践,以及建立和培养关系。经过适当培训后,教员可以协助进行SV。面对面SV向学生和临床医生展示了强有力的支持信息。与其他利益相关者类似,DCE重视SV建立、维护和加强临床和学术关系。实地考察还弥补了课程差距,支持利益相关者,并帮助DCE做好他们的工作。临床教育主管在考虑SV结构、沟通方法以及优先考虑学生和临床医生需求时具有战略意义。结果与我们的混合方法解释性序列研究的先前结果结合使用,以创建建议,这将使DCE能够倡导资源来继续进行SV,特别是在特定情况下,亲自进行SV。未来的研究应该探索临床医生的观点,特别是与首选的沟通方法、SV的结构以及与DCE以外的教员会面有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信