Clinical Instructor and Student Reports of Affective Behavior Issues During a Clinical Experience

Purpose: Clinical Instructors (CIs) have optimal opportunity to support non-cognitive attributes while observing and assessing student interactions with staff and patients because of the time spent with their students. There is a dearth of literature related to how items in the professional practice section of the Clinical Performance Instrument (CPI) are truly addressed during a clinical affiliation. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to record the occasions when lapses occur with respect to a student’s accountability, communication, or professional behavior, as well as assessing student and CI interpretations of how these instances were addressed, and subsequently corrected within the context of the clinical education experience and the student-CI dynamic. Methods: The sample for this study was drawn from four Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) programs located in the northeast region of the United States. Participants were recruited for the study with the assistance of each program’s Director of Clinical Education (DCE). After a “pre-survey,” both CIs and DPT students were sent the primary survey for 10 consecutive weeks via a text message to their personal smart phone. The 10-week survey corresponded with the last 10 weeks of the clinical experience for all CI/DPT student pairs. The primary survey asked both CIs and students whether a lapse in student accountability, communication, and/or professional behavior occurred in the given week and how the issue was addressed. Results: There were five instances where a student indicated that their CI addressed accountability, communication, or professional behavior with them regarding their patient care. In contrast, 3 clinical instructors reported instances where one of the attributes had to be addressed. Conclusion: The study concluded that students in their second or third affiliations were adequately prepared regarding accountability, communication, and professional behavior. However, a secondary conclusion may indicate that CIs are reticent to address non-cognitive behaviors because they may not equate them with the student’s ability to render effective care.