Effect of Procedure Type on Core Competency Implementation by Athletic Training Students

Abstract

Context Core competencies (CCs) are now a required component of educational content in all types of Commission on Accreditation of Athletic Training Education-accredited athletic training programs. There is limited evidence demonstrating which procedures included during patient encounters (PEs) occurring in clinical education allow for implementation of CCs. Objective To determine the relationship between procedures performed by athletic training students during PEs on CC implementation. Design Panel design. Setting Undergraduate, professional athletic training program, National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I institution. Patients or Other Participants We purposefully recruited 1 athletic training program that used E*Value (Medhub) software; 40 participants (31 female, 9 male) enrolled in the professional phase (12 first year, 14 second year, 14 third year) participated. Interventions Participants viewed a 20 minute recorded CC education module followed by educational handouts, which were available online for reference throughout the semester. E*Value was used to track procedures (prevention, evaluation, manual therapy, rehabilitation, treatment, diagnostic, surgical, or other) performed during PEs and an added block of questions indicating which, if any, of the CCs were implemented during the PE. Main Outcome Measure(s) Independent variables included procedures performed during PEs and whether any of the 6 CCs were implemented (yes/no). Binary logistic regression models determined how the type of procedure performed related to the implementation of each CC. Results Regression models were significant for 5 of the 6 CCs: patient-centered care (PCC; {\rm{\chi }}_7^2 = 62.949, P < .001), interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP; {\rm{\chi }}_6^2 = 41.172, P < .001), health care informatics ({\rm{\chi }}_7^2 = 186.487, P < .001), evidence-based practice (EBP) ({\rm{\chi }}_8^2 = 54.712, P < .001), and quality improvement ({\rm{\chi }}_7^2 = 67.967, P < .001). Participants including evaluation procedures during PE were 3.6 and 1.3 times more likely to implement PCC and IPECP, respectively. Participants including a diagnostic procedure were 4.2 and 2.9 times more likely to implement EBP and IPECP, respectively, and 0.2 times less likely to implement health care informatics. Participants incorporating a manual therapy procedure were 2.6, 1.7, and 2.1 times more likely to implement PCC, EBP, and quality improvement, respectively. Conclusions Athletic training program administrators should identify clinical sites that allow for PEs and procedural opportunities that align with priorities for greater CC implementation.