Part 2. Payment for Clinical Education Experiences in Physical Therapy: Perspectives From Stakeholders

Introduction/Review of the Literature: Payment for clinical education (CE) experiences is a current topic of discussion within health care professions wherein incidence of payment is described as rare but growing. The American Council of Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT) Board charged the National Consortium of Clinical Educators (NCCE) to investigate payment for physical therapist (PT) CE experiences. The ACAPT NCCE Task Force (TF) on Payment for Clinical Experience surveyed academic, clinical, and student CE stakeholders to explore perspectives on the current landscape for payment of PT CE experience. Methods: Two surveys were constructed using an exploratory research design: an academic and clinical stakeholder survey and a student survey. For the academic and clinical survey, the TF used member content expertise and literature review to draft questions. Final questions were crafted after conducting 2 validation rounds by an expert panel. For the student survey, student focus groups created and validated final survey questions. Snowball sampling was employed for survey dissemination through ACAPT and NCCE networks. Descriptive statistics were examined and significant differences (P < .05) between stakeholder groups were analyzed. Analysis of open-text responses was conducted to categorize and identify common concepts. There were 1,883 academic and clinical stakeholder survey respondents, with 84.3% identifying as a clinical-only role; all NCCE regions and practice settings were represented. First-, second-, and third-year doctor of physical therapy student survey respondents (2,815) represented both private and public academic programs. Results: Less than 5% of academic institutions reported paying any portion of full-time CE experiences. A majority of respondents (1,153, 71.9%) were neutral or disagreed that clinical instructors (CIs) should receive direct payment for supervising students and 76.9% indicated that students should not be required to pay for CE experiences. Both intrinsic and extrinsic factors were cited as reasons not to seek payment and as benefits for providing CE experiences. Supervision restrictions and productivity expectations were identified as key barriers to providing CE experiences. Students indicated that prior knowledge of site and CI qualifications would be expected should students be required to pay for CE experiences. Discussion and Conclusion: Most academic, clinical, and student CE stakeholders did not support payment for CE experiences. The stakeholder-identified motivators and nonmonetary incentives to provide CE experiences present an opportunity to explore initiatives that will enhance availability of PT CE experiences aligned with an ACAPT strategic plan on a national level.

Duke Scholars

Author Katherine Myers Orthopaedic Surgery, Physical Therapy