BACKGROUND: The uptake and utilisation of allied health assistants as professional support staff has been variable across disciplines and jurisdictions. Although they are potentially very important in the current health workforce context, there is little agreement on their roles or the most suitable methods to define these roles. METHOD: Based on a review of literature, existing role descriptions and focus groups, a Delphi survey process was undertaken. This process comprising three rounds of discussion and clarification via email, with between 107 and 188 participants, was undertaken to define and establish consensus on allied health assistant roles at three levels. RESULTS: Three cycles of editing, qualitative feedback and rating of agreement with statements resulted in substantial clarification of roles and a meaningful degree of consensus regarding the role and scope of such positions. High levels of agreement were not reached for more high-level or contested clinical tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in key tasks and roles being defined and contentious aspects clearly identified. The process facilitated engagement with workforce members most closely affected by these questions. It was a useful means of drawing together the opinions of the workforce and informing implementation trials to follow.
BACKGROUND: The uptake and utilisation of allied health assistants as professional support staff has been variable across disciplines and jurisdictions. Although they are potentially very important in the current health workforce context, there is little agreement on their roles or the most suitable methods to define these roles. METHOD: Based on a review of literature, existing role descriptions and focus groups, a Delphi survey process was undertaken. This process comprising three rounds of discussion and clarification via email, with between 107 and 188 participants, was undertaken to define and establish consensus on allied health assistant roles at three levels. RESULTS: Three cycles of editing, qualitative feedback and rating of agreement with statements resulted in substantial clarification of roles and a meaningful degree of consensus regarding the role and scope of such positions. High levels of agreement were not reached for more high-level or contested clinical tasks. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in key tasks and roles being defined and contentious aspects clearly identified. The process facilitated engagement with workforce members most closely affected by these questions. It was a useful means of drawing together the opinions of the workforce and informing implementation trials to follow.
Authors: Lisa Brice-Leddy; Debbie Park; William Bateman; January Drysdale; Laura Ratushny; Suad Musse; Stephanie A Nixon Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2020 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: David A Snowdon; Beth Storr; Annette Davis; Nicholas F Taylor; Cylie M Williams Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-03 Impact factor: 2.655