Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37468972›Full record

ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2023

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

Ryan S Causby, Sindhrani Dars, Malia Ho, Steven Walmsley, Shannon Munteanu, Helen A Banwell

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ryan S CausbyThe University of South Australia, Allied Health & Human Performance Unit, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. ryan.causby@unisa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9236-9379
Sindhrani DarsThe University of South Australia, Allied Health & Human Performance Unit, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Malia HoSchool of Primary and Allied Health, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, 3199, Australia.
Steven WalmsleyDivision of Podiatry, School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4000, Australia.
Shannon MunteanuDiscipline of Podiatry, School of Allied Health, Human Services and Sport, La Trobe University, Victoria, 3086, Australia.
Helen A BanwellThe University of South Australia, Allied Health & Human Performance Unit, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe 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.

methodsThis 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.

resultsTwenty-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.

conclusionsThis 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.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetencePodiatryAustraliaDelphi TechniqueFemaleHumansMaleStudentsClinical competencyClinical placementsConsensusDelphi surveyPodiatryWork-integrated learning

Identifiers

PMID37468972
PMCPMC10354956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.