Site Visits in Family Medicine: Stakeholders Perspectives on How Site Visits Can Be Improved to Maximize Preceptor Support and the Quality of Medical Student and Resident Supervision

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Palmer

Rapport

2022

“…9 Research in other health science disciplines supports that clinical faculty and students consider SVs important and have a valued role in the CEE. 7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] ere are potential barriers to conducting SVs, especially those done in-person. 5,6,13,16,17 Some literature suggests alternatives to in-person visits, including the use of videoconferencing or telephone calls, which may mitigate some of these barriers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7,[9][10][11][12][13][14][15] ere are potential barriers to conducting SVs, especially those done in-person. 5,6,13,16,17 Some literature suggests alternatives to in-person visits, including the use of videoconferencing or telephone calls, which may mitigate some of these barriers. 5,13,[16][17][18] No current guidelines exist regarding specific circumstances that warrant one communication method over another when conducting an SV.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Greco

Hochman

Jung

et al. 2021

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.

The Clinical Site Visit: Perspectives of Physical Therapist Students

Greco

Kupczynski

Silberman

et al. 2020

Introduction. Best practice in clinical education includes actions to ensure strong partnerships and close, consistent communication among all stakeholders. One way this can be accomplished is through a site visit. There is limited literature supporting the most preferred communication for conducting these visits. Perspectives of physical therapist students (PTS) about the site visit process are scarce. This study explored whether PTS perceive site visits as important, PTS' preferred method of communication used to conduct these visits, and the reasons underlying these preferences. Number of Subjects. One hundred thirty-five PTS. Materials and Methods. A mixed-methods, sequential explanatory design was used. A survey was sent to current PTS and recent graduates. Additional qualitative data were collected from a subset of 8 PTS from the sample using semistructured interviews. Results. Statistical analysis showed no relationship between the level of clinical experience and preferences for communication methods and no significant differences in levels of importance of site visits. A majority of PTS preferred future visits be conducted in person as opposed to other methods of communication or having no site visit. Students indicated that in-person site visits offer more truthful communication and that although a telephone call may be “sufficient” for a site visit, in-person site visits are necessary when students are having difficulties in the clinic. Conclusions. Students are cognizant of the nonverbal cues that occur with in-person communication and that these cues add to the transparency and truthfulness of conversations. Nonverbal communication may be most impactful for the PTS experiencing difficulties during a clinical experience. Given the barriers for conducting site visits, this study provides information that can assist in the decision-making process for communication methods used to conduct these visits. Further research is needed to determine if there is alignment between PTS' perspectives and those of other stakeholders.