JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

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

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

Table 1. Participant demographics

Level of student supervised

Setting

Caseload

No. of student placements

Group Employment status

Practice size (no. of SPs in F/T or P/T positions)

Participant 1

A Sole trader

1

Clinic, schools & mobile Clinic, schools & mobile

Paediatric

3

Intermediate

Participant 2

A Owner & employer

5

Paediatric & adult

1

Intermediate

Participant 3

A Owner & employer

4

Clinic & schools Paediatric & adult

8

Intermediate & advanced Intermediate & advanced

Participant 4

A Employee

4

Clinic & schools Paediatric

2

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

38

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology