JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

45 / 60

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015 43
Table 5. Group A participants’ perceptions of satisfaction of clients/families, private practitioners and
students involved in student placements in private practice
Category Subcategory Exemplar comments
Client satisfaction Most clients enjoyed change from clinician to student
Most clients happy to have student again in the future
Clients appreciative of the effort put in by students
“Some clients loved it for the change of environment”
“I’ve never had any parents or clients complain”
“One client with autism didn’t cope with the change”
Student satisfaction Students enjoyed:
• the caseload
• being part of the team
• access to resources
• access to other clinicians
• the self-directedness of the placement
“We’ve had reports back that it’s the best placement
they’ve ever had in their course”
“I had feedback that it was a really positive first off-campus
experience”
Clinician satisfaction 5 of 6 clinicians plan to continue to have students
1 of 6 still undecided after having students for the first
time
“It exceeded my expectations”
“We are obviously satisfied with the experience. We would
not have done it for 15 years otherwise”
“I’m obviously happy as already have my next placement
planned”
Participant 11: “we have a lot to offer!” There were many
common challenges and barriers across both groups,
including lack of clarity around reimbursement and how to
manage time and space issues. Private practitioners who
had supervised students identified some different barriers to
those who had not, including clarity of expectations from
the university and managing weak students. Workload,
income maintenance, and client selection, which were
perceived barriers for private practitioners who had not
supervised students, were not a concern for those who
had; they had found ways to manage these challenges.
Both groups could see benefits in having students on
placement including benefits for individual clients.
Importantly, those who had taken students reported
benefits of increased productivity and diversity of services
able to be offered to clients, and enjoyment and reward in
supervising students.
The results of this preliminary study need to be
considered with caution given the sample size was small
and the participants’ perceptions may not reflect those of
other members of the profession. In addition, the interviews
were not recorded and transcribed verbatim, thus limiting
the authors’ capacity to complete member checks with
participants on accuracy of the data. However, it is noted
that the study did include all private practitioners who are
currently taking students at the authors’ university, thus
reducing the risk of bias within the targeted population.
Furthermore, the issues the participants raised were largely
consistent with those raised in similar studies examining
the perceptions of physiotherapists and occupational
therapists.
There are some clear implications from our findings.
Participants want clarity around reimbursement and
professional indemnity issues when students are involved
in service delivery, and also clear information about
expectations from universities who send students on
placements. Participants want advice on how to make
student placements work effectively for them. Therefore, in
the next phase of this project we will attempt to respond
to comments such as “we’re going to have to take a role
eventually. It’s got to be something we have to resolve
but I’m just confused as to the hows” (Participant 7)
and “I don’t know how to do it; it’s just in the ‘too hard
basket’” (Participant 10). We will work with willing private
practitioners to explore a range of strategies to make it
possible to take students on placements in private practice.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the speech pathologists in private
practice who participated in this study for their generosity of
time and ideas.
References
Armstrong, A., Fordham, L., & Ireland, S. (2004). Clinical
education in private practice settings: An impossible dream
or a new marriage? Paper presented at the International
Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics Congress,
Brisbane, Australia.
DiCicco-Bloom, B., & Crabtree, B. F. (2006). The
qualitative research interview. Medical Education, 40(4),
314–321.
Doubt, L., Paterson, M., & O’Riordan, A. (2004). Clinical
education in private practice: An interdisciplinary project.
Journal of Allied Health , 33(1), 47–50.
Green, R. G., Baskind, F. R., Mustian, B. E., Reed, L.
N., & Taylor, H. R. (2007). Professional education and
private practice: Is there a disconnect? Social Work, 52(2),
151–159.
Health Workforce Australia. (2013). Strategic plan
2013–2016. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.
Health Workforce Australia. (2014). Australia’s health
workforce series – Speech pathologists in focus . Canberra,
ACT: Australian Government.
Health Workforce Australia. (n.d.). Integrated Regional
Clinical Training Networks. Retrieved 2 Oct. 2014 from
https://www.hwa.gov.au/our-work/build-capacity/
integrated-regional-clinical-training-networks
Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches
to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research,
15 (9), 1277–1288.
Lambier, J. (2002). Membership survey. Melbourne:
Speech Pathology Australia.
MacPhail, A., Alappat, T., Mullen, B., & Napoli, L. (2011).
Policies, barriers and incentives impacting student clinical