Experiences with Interprofessional and Collaborative Models ofÊClinical Education in the Inpatient Rehab SettingÊ Ê

Purpose: ToÊidentify opportunities and obstacles to implementing collaborative learning models in the inpatient rehabilitation clinical education environmentMethods/Description: UF Health Shands Rehabilitation Hospital (SRH) is a 40 bed inpatient rehabilitation facility located in Gainesville, Florida near the University of Florida (UF).SRH provides clinical education for an average of 15-18 full-time students annually (including OT, COTA, PT, PTA). As part of ongoing efforts to build academic and clinical partnerships, representatives from SRH and UF DPT identified opportunities to enhance collaborative and interprofessional experiences for this setting. We developed an assessment to seek feedback from students and clinicians involved in these experiences. Our intent is to begin to identify best practices for implementing models of collaborative and interprofessional education in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. ÊResults/Outcomes: Beginning in January 2013, SRH utilized a variety of collaborative experiences with their students. These experiences included pairing two students with one clinical instructor as well as pairing one PT student with one OT student providing for interprofessional collaboration. Each of these collaborative experiences demonstrated a different pairing of students, including students with the same or staggered start dates, at differing levels of experience, from different academic programs, and PT/PTA and OT/COTA student models. Since the initiation of this model, 7 PT/PTA students, 7 OT/COTA students and 6 clinicians have participated. For SRH, use of the collaborative education model has allowed us to continue to maintain our annual student average with fewer clinical instructors. During 2013 and 2014, we were able to accommodate an additional 2 PT students and 2 OT students. In addition, we have been able to decrease the time spent by clinical staff on the formal student orientation and demonstrate improved recruitment.Ê Our review of the data demonstrates several emerging themes regarding opportunities and obstacles: positive benefits of peer learning, increased student autonomy, decreased student caseload, decreased availability of the CI and difficulty with scheduling.Conclusions/Relevance to the conference theme: Shaping the Future of Physical Therapy Education: Publications regarding collaborative models of clinical education have steadily increased over the last 20 years. (1-9) Additionally, there has been a recent emphasis on interprofessional education in the literature, indicating the emerging importance of this topic. (9-11)Ê Changes in our healthcare system over the last 30 years indicate a need to change how clinical education is provided (12-13). Our experience indicates that the primary obstacle to shifting to collaborative models of clinical education is a reluctance to change. It is our opinion that the future of physical therapy education depends on the collaboration of academic and clinical education settings to change the perceptions regarding methods of producing self-directed, adaptable and collaborative practitioners. ÊReferences: 1.ÊLadyshewsky R.Ê Clinical teaching and the 2:1 student-to-clinical instructor ratio.Ê J PhysÊTher Educ.Ê 1993;7:31-35. 2.Ê Ladyshewsky R.ÊÊEnhancing service productivity in acute careÊinpatient settings using a collaborative clinical education model.ÊPhysÊTher. 1995;75:503-510. 3.Ê Triggs Nemshick M, Shepard K.Ê Physical therapy clinical education in a 2:1 student-instructor education model.Ê Phys Ther. 1996;76:968-981. 4.Ê Ladyshewsky R, Barrie S, Drake V.ÊÊA comparison of productivity and learning outcome in individual and cooperative physical therapy clinical education models.Ê Phys Ther. 1998;78:1288-1301. 5.Ê Baldry Currens J, Bithell CP.Ê The 2:1 clinical placement model:Ê perceptions of clinical educators and students.Ê Physiotherapy. 2003;89:204-218. 6.Ê Moore A, Morris J, Crouch V,ÊÊ Martin M.Ê Evaluation of physiotherapy clinical education models:Ê comparing 1:1, 2:1 and 3:1 placements.Ê Physiotherapy.Ê 2003;89:489-501. 7.Ê Miller A, Pace T, Brooks D, Mori B.Ê Physiotherapy internship:Ê an alternative collaborative learning model.Ê Physiother Can.Ê 2006;58:157-166. 8.Ê Lekkas P, Larsen T, Kumar S, et al.ÊNo model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another:Ê a systematic review.Ê AustÊJ Physiother. 2007;53:19-28. 9.ÊDubouloz C, Savard J, Burnett D, Guitard P.Ê An interprofessional rehabilitation university clinic in primary health care:Ê a collaborative learning model for physical therapist students in a clinical placement.Ê J Phys Ther Educ.Ê 2010;24:19-24. 10.ÊHilton R, Morris J.Ê Student placements- is there evidence supporting team skill development in clinical practice settings? J Interprof Care.Ê 2001;2:171-83. 11.Ê Robson M, Kitchen SS.Ê Exploring physiotherapy students' experiences of interprofessional collaboration in the clinical setting:Ê acritical incident study.Ê J Interprof Care.Ê 2007; 1:95-109. 12.Ê Strohschein J, Hagler P, May L.Ê Assessing the need for change in clinical education practices.Ê ÊPhys Ther.Ê 2002;82:160-172. 13.Ê Weddle M, Sellheim D.Ê An integrative curriculum model preparing physical therapists for Vision 2020 practice.Ê J Phys Ther Educ.Ê 2009;23:12-21. Ê

BACK to Abstract Results

  • Control #: 1995733
  • Type: Poster
  • Event/Year: ELC2014
  • Authors: Jennifer Amsinger, Michael Chiarelli, Gwenda Creel, Rebecca Piazza
  • Keywords:

BACK to Abstract Results