Alignment within Clinical Education Programs and the Clinical Site - Administrative Processes Assessment

Purpose: There is a need for a bi-directional Clinical Education (CE) process performance assessment to establish a meaningful relationship between the Clinical Site (CS) and the University partner, one that assesses performance outcomes and stakeholder needs. While students evaluate clinical instructors (CI) and CS, no formal mechanism exists for CS and universities to evaluate each other, especially concerning administrative workflows and goal alignment within the CE placement process. The gap in collaborative, ongoing assessment may lead to a perceived lack of partnership value. This study aims to identify any existing clinical placement administrative performance tools that seek to align goals and direct action between the CE and CS. Methods/Description: Using the PRISMA protocol, a systematic search was conducted, covering CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and hand-searched databases about the administrative relationship between PT programs and CS’s. Key terms included clinical site or partner, preceptor, coordinator, physical therapy students, academic program, and stakeholder. The search results were independently screened by two researchers, with a third researcher resolving conflicts. Inclusion criteria ensured that the article discussed both the clinical site and academic institution, pertained to Physical Therapy and/or Physical Therapy Assistant programs, and addressed one of the following topics: administrative performance assessment, outcomes assessment, workflow design, or goal alignment. Results/Outcomes: The search yielded 329 studies, with 80 duplicates removed and 222 studies deemed irrelevant in the abstract round. Reasons for exclusion include conference abstracts, publications not discussing both PT academic institutions and Clinical Partners sites, publications focusing solely on student clinical performance, and publications merely identifying the theoretical need for administrative assessment without outlining concrete assessment solutions. Twenty-seven full texts were assessed for eligibility, resulting in the exclusion of 20 more studies for not meeting inclusion criteria. This led to seven studies being included that met the established criteria. Overarching themes of published studies included CE curricular development using the context/input/process/product model, survey development to profile clinical educator characteristics, and multi-attribute utility analysis to facilitate values-based partnerships. None of them were co-authored by academic institutions and clinical sites collaboratively. Further analysis is forthcoming. 2 Conclusion: There is a clear gap in recent evidence providing quantifiable tools to the University and CS CE administrators as they navigate their professional collaboration, particularly from the standpoint of administrative performance and continuous goal alignment. With 294 DPT programs in the United States, partnering with thousands of clinical sites, the need to create sustained value for both stakeholders is imperative. Publications from this review included input directing CE curricular changes and evaluating the needs of the CS, but only one study pilots a methodological framework for two-way academic partnership evaluation. Future research should seek to develop and empirically substantiate a bi-directional stakeholder needs assessment.