Perspective in physical therapy education: creating a communication network to connect clinical education stakeholders

Article Sidebar

PDF HTML EPUB XML
Published Aug 1, 2020
DOI https://doi.org/10.7916/jcept.v2.1962

Main Article Content

Janice Howman
Associate Clinical Professor and Director of Clinical Education, Ohio University, Athens, OH
Tawna C. Wilkinson
Associate Professor and Director of Clinical Education, A.T. Still University of Health Science, Mesa, AZ
Nancy F. Mulligan
Associate Professor and Director of Clinical Education, Regis University, Denver, CO
Kara L. Lardinois
Clinical Instructor, Duke University Health System, Durham, NC
Colette Pientok
Education Manager/Site Coordinator of Clinical Education, Memorial System, Houston, TX

Abstract

Current issue: Collaboration among national, regional, and local physical therapy (PT) clinical education (CE) stakeholders is variable, creating fragmentation, duplication of efforts, and inconsistent lines of communication.


Perspective: A formalized network for effectively communicating across all CE stakeholders is needed to promote excellence in PT education. Whether centralized, decentralized, or blended, determining the best organizational structure to position the CE community for the future is critical. Participants at the 2018 National Consortium of Clinical Educators regional networking session envisioned the ideal network as a blended structure with shared leadership and centralized resources in either a bottom-up–top-down or circular configuration. A web of communication pathways connecting all CE stakeholders was also emphasized.


Implications for clinical education: Transforming the vision of CE partnerships from the narrow academic program–clinical site dyad to a broader, well-connected CE ecosystem is a prerequisite to develop a communication network. National, regional, and local stakeholders, including clinical representatives, must contribute to the development of the network. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are critical for building efficient, bidirectional interorganizational communication. The time is right for national leadership to collaborate with local CE stakeholders to identify the best network structure and ICTs to move the profession forward in its pursuit of educational excellence.

References

  • Best practice for physical therapist clinical education annual report to the 2017 house of delegates. Available from: https://www.acapt.org/docs/default-source/hot-topics/best-practice-for-physical-therapist-clinical-education-(rc-13-14)-report-to-2017-house-of-delegates.pdf [cited 22 July 2019].

  • Jensen GM, Hack LM, Nordstrom T, et al. National study of excellence and innovation in physical therapist education: part 2-a call to reform. Phys Ther (2017) 97: 875–88. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx062

  • Jensen GM, Nordstrom T, Mostrom E, et al. National study of excellence and innovation in physical therapist education: part 1-design, method, and results. Phys Ther (2017) 97: 857. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx061

  • American Council of Academic Physical Therapy Clinical Education Summit. Summit report and recommendations 2014. Available from: https://www.acapt.org/docs/default-source/pdfs/clinical-education-summit-2014-final-report-1.pdf [cited 22 July 2019].

  • PT in Motion News. New strategy group seeking input on physical therapy PT, PTA clinical education recommendations. Available from: https://www.apta.org/PTinMotion/NewsNow/?blogid=10737418615&id=47244643752 [cited 16 July 2019].

  • Hayhurst C. Planning for the future of clinical education. PT Motion (2019) 11: 38–44.

  • American Physical Therapy Association. Education Leadership Partnership (ELP). Available from: http://www.apta.org/ELP/ [cited 24 October 2019].

  • Howman J, Wilkinson T, Engelhard C, et al. Collaborations in clinical education: coordinating top-down and bottom-up efforts to advance best practices in physical therapist education. J Allied Health (2018) 47: e67–74.

  • Howman J, Wilkinson T, Engelhard C. Final report from the national consortium of clinical educators meeting of regional consortia: 2016 Education Leadership Conference. Education Leadership Conference 2016. Available from: http//www.acapt.org/docs/default-source/consortium-(ncce)/unpublished-documents/regional-consortia-3lc-2016-meeting-report.pdf?sfvrsn=623db4d8_6 [cited 22 July 2019].

  • Howman J, Wilkinson T, Mulligan N, et al. National Consortium of Clinical Educators regional networking session at 2018 Education Leadership Conference report to membership. Available from: https://www.acapt.org/docs/default-source/consortium-(ncce)/unpublished-documents/elc-2018-regional-networking-session_final-report.pdf?sfvrsn=25289d8_4 [cited 6 November 2019].

  • Pastor M, Terriquez V, Lin M. How community organizing promotes health equity, and how health equity affects organizing. Health Aff (Millwood) (2018) 37: 358–63. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2017.1285

  • Laverack G, Manoncourt E. Key experiences of community engagement and social mobilization in the Ebola response. Glob Health Promot (2016) 23: 79–82. doi: 10.1177/1757975915606674

  • Kickbusch I, Reddy KS. Community matters – why outbreak responses need to integrate health promotion. Glob Health Promot (2016) 23: 75–8. doi: 10.1177/1757975915606833

  • Corbin JH, Mittelmark MB, Lie GT. Grassroots volunteers in context: rewarding and adverse experiences of local women working on HIV and AIDS in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Glob Health Promot (2016) 23: 72–81. doi: 10.1177/1757975915569514

  • Gregson S, Nyamukapa CA, Sherr L, et al. Grassroots community organizations’ contribution to the scale-up of HIV testing and counselling services in Zimbabwe. AIDS (2013) 27: 1657–66. doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e3283601b90

  • Markovic J. Contingencies and organizing principles in public networks. Public Manag Rev (2017) 19: 361–80. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2016.1209237

  • Nolte IM. Interorganizational collaborations for humanitarian aid: an analysis of partnership, community, and single organization outcomes. Public Perform Manag Rev (2018) 41: 596–619. doi: 10.1080/15309576.2018.1462212

  • Shumate M, Atouba Y, Cooper KR, et al. Interorganizational communication. In the international encyclopedia of organizational communication. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; (2016) pp. 1317–39.

  • Pisano GP, Verganti R. Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harv Bus Rev (2008) 86: 78–86. doi: 10.1108/sd.2009.05625dad.001

  • Cristofoli D, Macciò L, Pedrazzi L. Structure, mechanisms, and managers in successful networks. Public Manag Rev (2015) 17: 489–516. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.798025

  • Mischen PA. Collaborative network capacity. Public Manag Rev (2015) 17: 380–403. doi: 10.1080/14719037.2013.822527

  • Chief Learning Officer. Centralization versus decentralization: a closer look at how to blend both. Available from: https://www.chieflearningofficer.com/2007/12/10/centralization-versus-decentralization-a-closer-look-at-how-to-blend-both/ [cited 24 October 2019].

  • American Physical Therapy Association. Best practice for physical therapist clinical education (RC 13-14): annual report to the 2017 House of Delegates. Available from: https://www.acapt.org/docs/default-source/hot-topics/best-practice-for-physical-therapist-clinical-education-(RC-13-14)-report-to-2017-house-of-delegates.pdf [cited 22 July 2019].

  • American Council of Academic Physical Therapy. Strategic plan. Available from: https://acapt.org/about/strategic-plan [cited 16 July 2019].

  • Education Leadership Partnership. 2018 Annual report of the education leadership partnership. Available from: https://www.apta.org/uploadedFiles/APTAorg/Educators/ELP/ELP2018AnnualReport.pdf [cited 6 November 2019].

  • Frow P, McColl-Kennedy J, Hilton T, et al. Value propositions: a service ecosystems perspective. Marking Theory (2014) 14: 327–51. doi: 10.1177/1470593114534346

  • Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Aggregate program data: 2017–2018 physical therapist education programs fact sheets 2018. Available from: http://www.capteonline.org/uploadedFiles/CAPTEorg/About_CAPTE/Resources/Aggregate_Program_Data/Archived_Aggregate_Program_Data/CAPTE_2018PTAggregateData.pdf [cited 22 July 2019].

  • Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education. Quick facts. Available from: http://www.capteonline.org/home.aspx [cited 16 July 2019].

  • O’Brien CW, Anderson R, Ayzenberg B, et al. Employers’ viewpoint on clinical education. J Allied Health (2017) 46: 131–7.

  • Fu JS, Cooper KR, Shumate M. Use and affordances of ICTs in interorganizational collaboration: an exploratory study of ICTs in nonprofit partnerships. Manag Comm Q (2019) 33: 219–37. doi: 10.1177/0893318918824041

  • American Physical Therapy Association. APTA communities. Available from: https://www.apta.org/AptaLogin.aspx?SSORedirect=1&RedirectTo=http://communities.apta.org/l/li/&redir=cC91cy9pbi8_bmF2SUQ9MTA3Mzc0MjMzMzI.b64 [cited 16 July 2019].

  • American Council of Academic Physical Therapy. Impact. Available from: https://www.acapt.org/impact [cited 16 July 2019].

  • American Physical Therapy Association. Membership matters: FAQ about APTA membership. Available from: https://www.apta.org/MembershipMatters/FAQ/ [cited 11 November 2019].

    • Article Details

    Keywords:
    clinical education, communication, network
    Issue
    Vol. 2 (2020)
    Section
    Original Research Articles
    Creative Commons License

    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    How to Cite
    Howman, J., Wilkinson, T. C., Mulligan, N. F., Lardinois, K. L., & Pientok, C. (2020). Perspective in physical therapy education: creating a communication network to connect clinical education stakeholders. The Journal of Clinical Education in Physical Therapy, 2. https://doi.org/10.7916/jcept.v2.1962