William Boissonnault1, Jean M Bryan. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Program in Physical Therapy, Madison, WI 53706-1532, USA. boiss@surgery.wisc.edu
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive survey. OBJECTIVE: Describe the availability of thrust joint manipulation clinical educational opportunities for physical therapy professional degree students. BACKGROUND: In the United States, most of the faculty teaching manual therapy content in physical therapy programs believe that the best way for their students to develop thrust joint manipulation skills is to receive additional training during clinical education experiences. There are no data that describe the availability of such training opportunities. METHODS AND MEASURES: Seventy-three physical therapy programs that include thrust joint manipulation in their curricula were divided into 5 geographic regions. Of these programs, 27% (total, n = 20) were randomly selected per region to participate. Program academic coordinators of clinical education (ACCEs) identified their clinical instructors working in outpatient orthopaedic settings. ACCEs and clinical instructors were surveyed regarding thrust joint manipulation clinical education opportunities for students. RESULTS: Survey return rates were 100% for ACCEs and 67.4% for clinical instructors. Of ACCEs, 70% were unsure which sites employed clinical instructors trained in thrust joint manipulation and 85% did not consider whether thrust joint manipulation training was provided when scheduling the experience. The ACCEs who did consider availability cited lack of qualified instructors as the number-one barrier to finding sites that offered thrust joint manipulation. Of clinical instructors, 30% provide thrust joint manipulation training including lecture/theory, technique demonstration, practice on "normals," and direct patient care supervision. Clinical instructors who did not teach thrust joint manipulation cited reasons that included the belief that it is not an entry-level skill (57%), lack of qualified staff (53%), liability concerns (46%), and students not being academically prepared (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the availability and scope of thrust joint manipulation clinical educational opportunities are limited, vary considerably, and are not considered when selecting clinical education sites for students. Potential obstacles to offering thrust joint manipulation training were identified, which suggested the need for resources, including clinical education curricula and philosophical guidelines for clinical instructors.
STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive survey. OBJECTIVE: Describe the availability of thrust joint manipulation clinical educational opportunities for physical therapy professional degree students. BACKGROUND: In the United States, most of the faculty teaching manual therapy content in physical therapy programs believe that the best way for their students to develop thrust joint manipulation skills is to receive additional training during clinical education experiences. There are no data that describe the availability of such training opportunities. METHODS AND MEASURES: Seventy-three physical therapy programs that include thrust joint manipulation in their curricula were divided into 5 geographic regions. Of these programs, 27% (total, n = 20) were randomly selected per region to participate. Program academic coordinators of clinical education (ACCEs) identified their clinical instructors working in outpatient orthopaedic settings. ACCEs and clinical instructors were surveyed regarding thrust joint manipulation clinical education opportunities for students. RESULTS: Survey return rates were 100% for ACCEs and 67.4% for clinical instructors. Of ACCEs, 70% were unsure which sites employed clinical instructors trained in thrust joint manipulation and 85% did not consider whether thrust joint manipulation training was provided when scheduling the experience. The ACCEs who did consider availability cited lack of qualified instructors as the number-one barrier to finding sites that offered thrust joint manipulation. Of clinical instructors, 30% provide thrust joint manipulation training including lecture/theory, technique demonstration, practice on "normals," and direct patient care supervision. Clinical instructors who did not teach thrust joint manipulation cited reasons that included the belief that it is not an entry-level skill (57%), lack of qualified staff (53%), liability concerns (46%), and students not being academically prepared (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the availability and scope of thrust joint manipulation clinical educational opportunities are limited, vary considerably, and are not considered when selecting clinical education sites for students. Potential obstacles to offering thrust joint manipulation training were identified, which suggested the need for resources, including clinical education curricula and philosophical guidelines for clinical instructors.