Clinical Educators’ Perceptions of Students Following a Simulation-Based Learning Program

Sally Hewat,Alison Purcell,Elizabeth Ward,Adriana Penman,Joanne Walters,Rachel Davenport,Patricia Mccabe,Danielle Aldridge,Emma Caird,Simone Howells,Elizabeth Cardell,Bronwyn Davidson,Anne Hill

doi:10.30707/tlcsd4.3/jrce8530

Abstract

Purpose: Clinical education is a key component of speech-language pathology university curriculum, whereby students have the opportunity to apply theoretical knowledge and practical skills learned in the classroom into a real workplace. However, more recently the availability of high quality, consistent clinical placements and learning experiences across the range of practice areas in the discipline is reducing. Therefore, alternative clinical learning opportunities that enable students to develop skills and competencies are being explored. Recently, replacing clinical time with a simulated learning program has been shown to achieve equivalent levels of clinical competency in speech pathology. However, it is unknown how simulation impacts on student learning in traditional clinical placements. Therefore, this research explored clinical educators’ perceptions of students undertaking clinical placements in their workplace immediately following a five-day simulation-based learning program related to the same area of practice. Method: Thirty-five clinical educators who supervised students in the workplace immediately after they completed the simulation program participated in semi-structured interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using qualitative methods described by Graneheim and Lundman (2004). Result: The analysis identified four key themes related to the impact of students in the workplace, simulation priming students for learning, the importance of the transition from simulation-based learning to the workplace, and the role of simulation in clinical education programs. Conclusion: The use of simulation to support student learning and develop clinical skills and competencies in adult speech pathology practice is supported by workplace clinical educators. However, results of this study suggest that the simulation program needs to be embedded within the curriculum and clinical education program to enhance transition between learning experiences and maximize benefits of learning experiences in real workplace contexts.

Highlights

Clinical education is an essential part of any professional degree in health
In Australia, speech-language pathology (SLP) programs ensure that all graduates demonstrate entry-level competency, as defined by Competency-based Occupational Standards (Speech Pathology Association of Australia, 2011), whereas in the United States students are required to complete a minimum of 400 clock hours of supervised clinical experience plus demonstrate a number of other standards in order to obtain a certificate of clinical competency (Council for Clinical Certification in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2013)
The results demonstrated that SLP students achieved a statistically equivalent level of competency in clinical placements when approximately 20% of the placement time was replaced with simulation, compared with traditional workplace placements involving no simulation (Hill et al, 2020)

Summary

Introduction

Clinical education is an essential part of any professional degree in health. In speech-language pathology (SLP) programs clinical education is explicitly embedded as an integral component of the academic curriculum. The primary goals of clinical education are for students to develop occupational and professional competency-based skills and attributes, to facilitate the student to be a lifelong learner, and to prepare them for complex work environments (McAllister & Lincoln, 2004). SLP programs have mandated requirements for academic and clinical education components. Regardless of the process followed, SLP students are assessed in clinical practice contexts to demonstrate competency prior to entering the workforce (McAllister et al, 2011)

Results

Discussion

Conclusion