JCPSLP Vol 19 No 2 2017 low res

Shaping innovative services: Reflecting on current and future practice

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au

JCPSLP

Volume 19, Number 2 2017

Robyn Johnson

(top) and

Elizabeth Bourne

THIS ARTICLE

HAS BEEN

PEER-

REVIEWED

KEYWORDS

CLINICAL

EDUCATION

PEER LEARNING

QUALITY

STUDENT

PLACEMENTS

WORKPLACE

LEARNING

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 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.

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,

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