Development of a Tool to Determine Excellence in the Provision of Physical Therapist Clinical Education: A Modified Delphi Study.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to create a Site of Excellence in Clinical Education (SECE-PT) tool with the essential criteria used to determine excellence in the provision of physical therapist clinical education at a clinical site using a consensus-building approach. The development of the SECE-PT tool was divided into 2 parts. Part 1 involved the development of an initial set of proposed criteria, whereas part 2 employed a modified Delphi approach for consensus building. Purposive selection and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit clinical instructors, recent graduates, site coordinators of clinical education, and directors of clinical education who met the inclusion criteria for the modified Delphi study. Three web-based survey rounds were used to achieve consensus, defined as a mean score of ≥7 on the 11-point Likert scale. The first round gathered demographic information on participants and collected information about clarity and redundancy in the criteria provided, the second gathered information once again about clarity and redundancy on the revised criteria provided, and the third asked participants to rate how essential it was for a site of excellence to demonstrate each of the final criteria. A total of 123 participants, equally representing clinical and academic perspectives, completed the demographic survey and round 1. Ninety-four participants completed round 2, and 80 participants completed the third and final round. Consensus revealed that 44 criteria were deemed essential for a SECE-PT to demonstrate. This study provides a measure to evaluate clinical sites providing clinical education. The SECE-PT tool should be widely adopted to evaluate the quality of the clinical site providing the education to student physical therapists. The SECE-PT tool can be used by clinical sites for self-assessment to examine aspects of their clinical education programs and determine whether parts of their program should be further developed. This can provide a framework for discussion and collaboration between clinical and academic partners, as well as regional consortia.