JCPSLP - March 2018

the perceived impact of TS on student learning experience and outcomes. Placements that involved TS varied by type (traditional/clinical, role-established non-clinical, and role-emerging) and by practice context (international, rural and metropolitan). Survey data from 39 undergraduate and graduate entry masters students from the disciplines of SLP, OT, PT and EP and in-depth interview data from 9 university staff in those disciplines explored the experience of receiving and providing TS, and led to the identification of benefits and barriers of TS (Nagarajan et al., 2015; Nagarajan et al., 2016). These findings are summarised in Table 1.

Table 2. Recommendations for effective telesupervision of students

Stage of telesupervision process

Recommendation

Pre-placement

1. Establish a clear rationale for using telesupervision 2. Be realistic about time commitments and resources 3. Proactively address logistics (scheduling, room requirements, audio and video set up) 4. Establish clear goals and expectations of telesupervision sessions with all participants 5. Select readily available ICT tools and technologies 6. Negotiate a suitable schedule for telesupervision 7. Consider and manage privacy and confidentiality issues

Table 1. Summary of student and staff perceived benefits and barriers to use of telesupervision

Category Results

Students

Perceived benefits: • enhanced learning experience on placement; • video conferencing providing a more suitable means for communication than email; • the opportunity for timely feedback; and • connectedness to university supervisors. Reported barriers:

During placement

8. Stay student-centred

Post placement

9. Evaluate, review, and act

• technological issues; • lack of internet access; • scheduling difficulties; • lack of privacy; • lack of familiarity with ICT; • compatibility issues;

Discussion of recommendations for telesupervision 1. Establish a clear rationale for using telesupervision Prior to the implementation of TS to support student learning in a specific context, a careful review of purpose, benefits and limitations is needed to make an informed decision about whether or not TS is appropriate for the particular placement situation. Being clear about the purpose of TS includes consideration of desired outcomes of each TS session because each interaction can have a different focus or intention. Broad purposes of TS include: (a) “off-site” monitoring of student development and progress; (b) supporting students and placement site supervisors during “at risk” placements; (c) increasing student opportunities for sharing and collaboration; and (d) responding to unexpected situations. “Off-site” monitoring of student development When no discipline-specific supervisor is available on-site and time and cost of travel to sites limit the direct support available from the university program, TS can be utilised on a regular basis by university staff to engage students in discussion of clinical issues. Telesupervision can support students to deliver quality services and client care, although caution is needed in support given if no direct observation of students delivering care is undertaken using TS. Any identified academic and clinical placement challenges may benefit from the additional mentoring and support available through TS. Increased availability of support from the university staff can also lessen the load of on-site placement supervisors. Supporting students and placement site supervisors during “at risk” placements “At risk” placements include placements where there is a perception of increased difficulty or “risk” because of context or client complexity, remote or international placements, or placements where students lack confidence or competence, struggling in their current placement or with a history of struggling on previous placements. In these

• absence of communication protocols; and • the burden of carrying personal ICT devices. Perceived benefits: • enhanced learning experience for students on placements; • a greater understanding of students’ placement experiences; • a more efficient way of communicating with students; and • connectedness with students. Reported barriers: • scheduling TS (most frequent); • concerns about time-cost benefit of TS; • lack of confidence with using technology; and • technological barriers.

Staff

The purpose of TS and models of TS utilised by Nagarajan and colleagues (2015) varied to suit the needs of the students and the type and context of placement sites. In some situations, university staff provided TS when a discipline-specific, on-site supervisor was not present (e.g., on a role-emerging placement). In other situations, the university staff augmented the professional support and direct supervision offered at the placement site in role-established or traditional placements. In the Nagarajan et al. (2015) study, at no point in any of the contexts was TS used to observe direct clinical interactions between students and clients. Despite the variation in type, context, availability of on-site supervision, and the resulting need for the placement coordinators to utilise flexible approaches to TS, a number of factors impacting on successful implementation of TS emerged. The nine recommendations presented in this paper incorporate these factors and build on previously presented data and perspectives. The recommendations are listed inTable 2.

From top to bottom: LuAnne McFarlane, Mark

Hall, Corilie Schmitz and Robin Roots

22

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 1 2018

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology