Consensus‐based statements for assessing clinical competency in podiatry‐related work integrated learning

• Published in: Journal of foot and ankle research Vol. 16; no. 1; pp. 43 - n/a
• Main Authors: Causby, Ryan S., Dars, Sindhrani, Ho, Malia, Walmsley, Steven, Munteanu, Shannon, Banwell, Helen A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central 19.07.2023; BioMed Central Ltd; Wiley
• Subjects: Academic achievement; Authorship; Clinical competency; Clinical placements; Colleges & universities; Consensus; Consent; Consumers; Delphi survey; Electronic mail systems; Learning; Medical research; Medicine, Experimental; Nominations; Physical therapy; Podiatry; Speech therapy; Students; Surveys; Work‐integrated learning; New Zealand; Australia; Delphi survey; Clinical placements; Clinical competency; Podiatry; Work-integrated learning; Consensus
• ISSN: 1757-1146; 1757-1146
• DOI: 10.1186/s13047-023-00639-7

Background The training of undergraduate and graduate‐entry podiatry students in Australia and New Zealand includes practical sessions in a simulated and real‐life clinical setting and Work Integrated Learning (WIL) comprising professional clinical placements. Student performance during WIL is evaluated by their Clinical Educators using clinical competency tools. Having a standardised and validated clinical assessment tool for WIL in podiatry would facilitate consistency in assessment, promote standardisation between programs, and ensure that all podiatry students are assessed against a set of criteria over the course of their clinical programs to the point of threshold clinical competency. Therefore, the aim of this study was to develop a series of consensus‐based statements via Delphi technique as the first step towards developing guidelines to direct the assessment of podiatry students during WIL. Methods This study used a three‐round modified Delphi consensus method. A panel of 25 stakeholders was sought. Specifically, representation from each of the universities in Australia and New Zealand who provide entry level programs, Clinical Educators, podiatry student representatives, new podiatry graduates and consumers (podiatrists hiring new graduates). The survey for Round 1 aimed for consensus and consisted of five open‐ended questions. Questions one to three asked respondents to nominate what they considered were the important elements that needed to be assessed for podiatry students undertaking WIL for: Clinical performance/skills, Communication and Professional behaviour, Question 4 asked respondents to identify further/other elements of importance, whilst Question 5 asked a) how these elements should be evaluated and b) how should overall competency and ability to progress within the program be determined. Round 2 and 3 aimed to gather agreement and the questions were based on the responses from previous rounds. Results Twenty‐five participants agreed to participate, 17 females (68%) and eight males (32%). The panel consisted of 10 podiatry educators (40%), nine Clinical Educators (36%), two student representatives (8%), two new podiatry graduates (8%) and two consumers (8%). From the 25 recruited participants, 21 responded to Round one, 18 to Round two and 17 in Round three. At the conclusion of the Delphi survey, 55 statements had reached consensus or agreement. Conclusions This Delphi study is the first of its kind for the podiatry profession to develop consensus‐based statements regarding the assessment of WIL. Fifty‐five statements pertinent to the assessment of WIL were identified. This is an important first step toward the development of a consistent WIL assessment tool which may be applied across entry‐level podiatry programs across Australia and New Zealand.