JCPSLP Vol 19 No 2 2017

Shaping innovative services: Reflecting on current and future practice

Expanding volume and quality of clinical placements The Capacity Development Facilitation framework in speech-language pathology Robyn Johnson, Elizabeth Bourne, Lyndal Sheepway, and Lindy McAllister

This paper describes the capacity development facilitation (CDF) framework, implemented through partnerships between universities and workplaces to enhance speech-language pathology student placements. We explain how educational theories guided the development of our approach to better equip clinical educators (CEs) and workplaces to provide high-quality student learning experiences in higher numbers than previously. This is necessary due to increasing student numbers and university requirements for continuous quality improvement of placements. We describe critical elements within the five phases of the CDF process – establish, encourage, evaluate, echo, embed – and share our experiences and key learning points from implementing the framework in a variety of speech-language pathology workplaces. Q uality clinical education is essential for the development of work-ready new graduate speech- language pathologists (SLPs), equipping them for practice in a complex and changing workplace (Siggins Miller Consultants, 2012). The contemporary workplace for SLPs and other allied health professionals is shifting in response to population needs such as ageing, and increasing rates of disability and chronic disease (World Health Organization, 2008). In Australia, funding sources are changing (e.g., the National Disability Insurance Scheme), SLPs’ roles are increasingly specialised (Briffa & Porter, 2013), and shortages of health professionals are predicted (Productivity Commission, 2005). There are also more professional preparation programs and the number of students in these programs has increased (Health Workforce Australia, 2014). These changes are timely catalysts for modifications to the structure, goals and delivery of clinical education in the health professions to ensure that workplaces have the ongoing capacity to contribute to the preparation of quality graduates. Research over the past three decades describes the effectiveness of clinical education models with multiple students to one clinical educator (CE) in allied health (see,

for example, (Bristow & Hagler, 1997; Ladyshewsky, 1995; Martin, Morris, Moore, Sadlo, & Crouch, 2004; Rosenthal, 1986). Despite this evidence, the dominant model of clinical education has remained the traditional 1:1 model; that is, one student placed with one CE (Sheepway, Lincoln, & Togher, 2011) who is responsible for imparting knowledge and role-modelling skills in an expert or apprenticeship model. The traditional model has limitations in meeting increasing demands for work-ready health graduates with skills in collaboration, teamwork, leadership and conflict management (Walker et al., 2013). These skills are facilitated through peer learning, which is difficult to access in the traditional model, as well as problem-based learning; confidence is also developed through collaboration with peers (Martin et al. 2004; Sheepway et al. 2011). Further, the traditional model assumes that change and learning happens within the student only, with little focus on the learning and professional development of the CE (Higgs & McAllister, 2005). In addition, placement supervision is often seen as the responsibility of only one CE in the particular workplace (Davies, Hanna, & Cott, 2011; Sevenhuysen & Haines, 2011), rather than a responsibility of a whole team. Typically, individual CEs receive few tangible rewards. The rewards and benefits are largely intrinsic (Davies et al., 2011) and include gaining enjoyment from teaching, the feeling of “giving back” to the profession, and receiving up-to-date knowledge from students (Davies et al., 2011; Sevenhuysen & Haines, 2011). While there may be benefits for individual CEs who assume sole responsibility for students in their workplace, there are also potential risks and disadvantages to the traditional model. We have observed risks for CEs and their workplace such as the responsibility of supervision falling on one CE, risks to their time use and workload productivity, lack of clinical education knowledge and skill building in other staff in the workplace, lost opportunities for career development and succession planning, lack of sustainability (if the sole CE leaves the site, placement capacity may be lost), and finally, limited growth in placement capacity at the site. In decades past, the traditional model of clinical education may have been pragmatically acceptable due to the availability of sufficient placements and CEs (Sheepway, et al., 2011). However, this is no longer the case given the two-fold increase in speech-language pathology student numbers in Australia from the early 2000s to 2014 (Health Workforce Australia, 2014). Academics in allied health education also have a better understanding of learning theories, including adult learning, workplace

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN PEER- REVIEWED KEYWORDS CLINICAL EDUCATION PEER LEARNING QUALITY STUDENT PLACEMENTS WORKPLACE LEARNING

Robyn Johnson (top) and Elizabeth Bourne

93

JCPSLP Volume 19, Number 2 2017

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au