Clinical Education Survey 2015

Transcription

1 Clinical Education Survey 2015 All 46 Educational Institutions who were EFRS Affiliate Members were invited to complete this survey between November 21 st 2014 and January 22 nd Responses were received from 38 of the Educational Institutions who were EFRS Affiliate Members representing a response rate of 82.6%. Responses were received from the following Educational Institutions who were EFRS Affiliate Members. Respondents Country Institution Country Institution Austria FH Campus Wien Malta University of Malta Austria FH Wiener Neustadt Netherlands Fontys UoAS Belgium Institut Paul Lambin Netherlands INHollland UoAS Belgium Odisee UoAS Netherlands Hanze UoAS Czech Republic University of West Bohemia Norway Buskerud University College Denmark University College Lillebelt Norway Gjøvik University College Estonia Tartu Health Care College Norway Buskerud University College Finland Oulu UoAS Norway Finland Turku UoAS Portugal Finland Helsinki Metropolia UoAS Portugal Finland Novia UoAS Portugal 1 Sør Trøndelag University College Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saúde de Lisboa Escola Superior de Tecnologia da Saude de Coimbra CESPU Cooperativa de Ensino Superior France IFNEM Nancy Slovenia University of Ljubljana Greece Technical University of Athens Sweden Hungary Semmelweis University Sweden Ireland University College Dublin Sweden University of Lund Örebro University Jöngköping school of Health Sciences Italy University of Bologna Switzerland UoAS Western Switzerland Italy Latvia Lithuania Università G. dannunzio Chieti University of Latvia Klaipeda University United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom University of Ulster University of Salford Robert Gordon University

2 Q1. What is the total amount of practical training for the student in the skills lab and in clinical practice during the whole period of education and training? Responses were received from all 38 respondents for this question. The majority of institutions (n=21) offered in excess of 60 ECTS of practical training for students in the skills lab and in clinical practice during their programmes. This was followed by 11 institutions that incorporated between ECTS of practical training for students in the skills lab and in clinical practice during their programmes. For the 21 institutions with in excess of 60 ECTS, the mean ECTS included in their programmes was 76.9 (SD = 11.3 ECTS; range: 62 to 96 ECTS). 2

3 Q2. What is the total amount of practical training that the student performs in the skills lab during the whole period of education and training? Over 50% (n=21) of programmes provided 15 ECTS or less of practical training within the skills labs. All of the programmes offering in excess of 26 ECTS of practical training in the clinical skills lab were located in Belgium, the Netherlands and Portugal. 3

4 Q3. What is the percentage of the total amount of ECTS clinical training that the student performs under supervision during the whole period of education and training? The percentage of the total amount of ECTS clinical training for students performed under supervision varied from 10 20% of the time (n=3) to in excess of 50% of the time (n=10). For the 10 institutions with in excess of 50% of the student clinical training performed under supervision, the mean percentage was 84.6% (SD = 18.7%; range: 55 to 100%). 4

5 Q4. How many students are supervised by one clinical staff member during clinical placement? The majority, 79% (n=30), of institutions indicated that between 1 3 students were supervised by an individual clinical staff member during clinical placement, 8% (n=3) indicated that between 4 6 students were supervised by an individual clinical staff member during clinical placement, and 13% (n=5) indicated that between 7 10 students were supervised by an individual clinical staff member during clinical placement Q5. Is there a dedicated supervisor at each clinical placement site? The majority, 71.1% (n=27) indicated that there was a dedicated clinical supervisor available at all of their clinical placement sites. Only one institution indicated that they had No dedicated clinical placement supervisor at any of their clinical sites. 5

6 When asked about the clinical practice supervisors, 68% (n=26) institutions indicated that the dedicated clinical supervisors were paid by the hospital and 16% (n=6) indicated that the dedicated clinical supervisors were paid by the University. Those who responded Other (16%, n=6) indicated that their clinical supervisors were a mix of those paid for by the hospital and those paid for by the University (n=3), that the clinical supervisors were radiographers working in the clinical department rather than dedicated clinical supervisors (n=2), or a combination of dedicated clinical supervisors paid for by the University and academic staff members (n=1). 6

7 Q6. What are the responsibilities of the clinical supervisors? The table below highlights the range and frequency of responsibilities of the clinical supervisors. Activities Teach students On a regular basis Sometimes Not at all n % n % n % Monitor the student's progress in the achievement of the learning outcomes Provides feedback to the student Provides the feedback to the educational institution about the progress of clinical placement Assess the students achievement of learning outcomes in clinical placement Complete the paperwork related to the student clinical training Meet the management of the department about the learning environment Organise in house learning opportunities for co workers about student teaching Participate in the time planning of the clinical placement Participate in the planning of the course content Assign the student to the departments Meet the academic tutor to exchange information about the clinical placement

8 Q7. What are the requirements for the selection of clinical supervisors? 68.4% (n=26) of institutions indicated that State registration as a radiographer was a requirement to work as a clinical supervisor, 57.9% (n=22) indicated that at least 2 years experience as a qualified radiographer was a requirement, and 44.7% (n=17) indicated that training on supervision was a requirement. Those who responded Other (26.3%, n=10) indicated that requirements included: must be a State registered radiographer with at least 2 years experience and training in supervision (n=1), 3 years clinical experience (n=2), the highest basic education grade as possible (n=3), have some teaching training (n=1), must be established in a clinical department and be able to discriminate good from bad practice (n=1), must work in a large hospital (n=1), be committed to CPD (n=1), have the right to train and supervise (n=1), or must be nominated by the clinical department (n=1). 8

9 Q8. Is training for clinical supervisors compulsory? 44.7% (n=17) stated Yes that training was compulsory for all clinical supervisors. Q9. Who performs the training of clinical supervisors? 68.4% (n=26) indicated that teaching staff from the educational institution provided the training to clinical supervisors, 10.5% (n=4) indicated that the training was provided by clinical staff, while 21.1% (n=8) indicated Other. Those who responded Other indicated that no such training is available (n=3), academic courses are provided (n=3), and trainees can attend any external clinical supervision course (n=1). 9

10 Q10. What amount of compulsory clinical supervisor training hours is undertaken? The majority of institutions, 52.6% (n=20), indicated that less than 10 hours was required. This was followed by 21.1% (n=8) who indicated that over 50 hours of training was required. For the 8 institutions with in excess of 50 hours of training required for clinical supervisors the mean was 152 hours (SD = 72.9 hours; range: 60 to 240 hours). Q11. What topics are covered within clinical supervisor training? As can be seen below a range of topics are commonly included in these training programmes. 10

11 Q12. Is there a formal agreement with all participating clinical placement sites? The majority of institutions, 86.8% (n=33), indicated Yes there was a formal agreement in place with all participating clinical sites. Q13. Is there a financial payment made to the clinical placement sites? Half of the institutions (n=19) indicated Yes there was a financial payment made to the clinical sites while the other half indicated No that there was not a financial payment made to the clinical sites. Q14. How is the quality of the clinical placement assured? 31.6% (n=12) institutions indicated that regular audits of the clinical placement sites were performed. When asked to specify the frequency of these audits, 7 institutions responded as shown in the figure below. The majority of institutions used student questionnaires about the clinical placements (86.8%; n=33) or student questionnaires about the supervision by clinical staff (68.4%; n=26). 11

12 Q15. What support mechanisms are in operation for the clinical supervisor? The most commonly available supports for the clinical supervisors in descending order of frequency were: meetings at the educational institution (81.6%), regular visits by academic staff (76.3%), training courses (36.8%) and web based support (42.1%). Those who responded Other indicated: regular contact with academic staff, telephone contact, peer support network across sites, occasional consultations, and topic discussions. 12

13 Q16. What methods are most commonly used for the assessment of clinical placement competences of the student? The most common methods employed in descending order of frequency were: observation of professional practice (76.3%), written report (73.7%), portfolio (57.9%), reflective records (55.3%), case study (50%), oral presentation (47.4%), oral examination (44.7%), recording and reporting (39.5%) and OSCEs (39.5%). 13

14 Q17. Identify the persons that participate in the assessment process. Respondents were asked to identify the individuals involved in the clinical assessment process be this formative assessment or summative assessment. The results are shown below. Q18. Have you reviewed the competences of your graduates to the EFRS benchmark document for level 6 of the European Qualifications Framework? 79% (n=30) of respondents indicated Yes they had reviewed the graduate competencies as outlined in the EFRS EQF benchmark document for level 6. 14