40 / 60
38
JCPSLP
Volume 17, Number 1 2015
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
variety of clients for the student, clients being reluctant to
see or pay for a session run by a student, travel costs for
the students if services are provided outside of the private
practice clinic, and part-time clinicians being unable to
supervise students. Private practitioners also expressed
concern that private practice placements may not develop
a student’s autonomy due to need for close and direct
supervision as a result of third party payers’ restrictions and
professional indemnity insurance requirements.
The benefits of supervising students in private practice
have also been examined in several of the studies outlined
above (e.g., Doubt et al., 2004; MacPhail et al., 2011;
Sloggett et al., 2003). Many of the benefits suggested by
private practitioners surveyed are similar to those listed
in the literature regarding clinical education in general
(McAllister, 2005; McAllister & Lincoln, 2004; Potts et
al., 1998; Rodger, Webb, Devitt, Gilbert, Wrightson &
McMeeken, 2008). Indeed, clinicians reported that their
own quality of work improved as a result of supervising
students, and noted that students brought with them the
latest theory, evidence-based practice, and knowledge of
new resources. The clinicians also noted that they enjoyed
the process and appreciated the enthusiasm and new
ideas students brought to the workplace, thus increasing
their own job satisfaction. Contrary to the perceived barriers
discussed earlier, private practice clinicians reported that
productivity, client care, and client satisfaction improved as
a result of having students on clinical placements (Doubt et
al., 2004; MacPhail et al., 2011; Sloggett et al., 2003).
Despite emerging evidence from other health
professions, there is currently limited research in speech
pathology as to why student placement provision in private
practices does not reflect the last decade’s labour force
trend towards private practice. Armstrong, Fordham, and
Ireland (2004) drew on the literature and their experience
that new and recently graduated speech pathologists are
more likely to enter the private sector directly compared
to a decade ago. New graduates may be ill-prepared
for private practice without having experience in such
workplaces as students. One driver for Health Workforce
Australia to establish the Integrated Regional Clinical
Training Networks was to “facilitate greater levels of clinical
training activity in primary care, community and mental
health, aged care, the private sector and rural and remote
locations” (HWA, no date) and increase the contribution of
the private sector to clinical training.
Challenges, barriers, benefits and
incentives
Numerous studies in other allied health professions,
including occupational therapy and physiotherapy, have
explored the possible challenges and barriers to clinical
education in private practice (MacPhail, Alappat, Mullen &
Napoli, 2011; MacPhee & Kotlarenko, 1998, as cited in
Doubt, Paterson, & O’Riordan, 2004; Maloney, Stagnitti, &
Schoo, 2013; Potts, Babcock, & McKee, 1998; Sloggett et
al., 2003). Common themes have emerged from the results
of these studies, including perceptions among health
professionals that taking students will result in fewer clients
being seen and hence a loss of income for the clinician or
organisation. A second theme relates to legal concerns.
Clinicians reported that the uncertainty of third party funding
for student-run sessions was a deterrent to taking students
on placement (Doubt et al., 2004; Sloggett et al., 2003). A
further common theme was that clinicians felt they did not
have the time to supervise students on top of their busy
caseloads, administration, and business management tasks
(MacPhail et al., 2011; Sloggett et al., 2003). Clinicians also
reported concerns about fluctuating caseloads, finding a
Table 1. Participant demographics
Group Employment status
Practice size
(no. of SPs in F/T
or P/T positions)
Setting
Caseload
No. of
student
placements
Level of
student
supervised
Participant 1
A Sole trader
1
Clinic, schools &
mobile
Paediatric
3
Intermediate
Participant 2
A Owner & employer
5
Clinic, schools &
mobile
Paediatric &
adult
1
Intermediate
Participant 3
A Owner & employer
4
Clinic & schools Paediatric &
adult
8
Intermediate
& advanced
Participant 4
A Employee
4
Clinic & schools Paediatric
2
Intermediate
& advanced
Participant 5
A Partner & employer
4
Clinic & schools Paediatric &
adult
>40
Novice to
advanced
Participant 6
A Partner & employer
8
Clinic & schools Paediatric
1
Intermediate
Participant 7
B Owner & employer
6
Clinic & schools Paediatric
–
N/A
Participant 8
B Sole trader
1
Clinic & mobile
Adult
–
N/A
Participant 9
B Owner & employer
3
Clinic
Paediatric
–
N/A
Participant 10 B Partner & associates
9
Clinic & schools Paediatric
–
N/A
Participant 11 B Owner & employer
6
Clinic & schools Paediatric
–
N/A
N/A = not applicable; A = participants who have supervised students; B = participants who have not supervised students