JCPSLP Vol 17 No 1 2015_lores

Table 3. Participants’ perceptions of the challenges and barriers associated with having students in private practice

Group B: those who had not taken students on placements

Category

Subcategory

Found in Group A: those who had taken students on placements

Organisational challenges

Time commitment

*

*

Finding space for students to work

*

Difficulty managing student in a mobile practice Finding enough parents to agree to having a student clinician Increased workload on top of an already busy workload Finding enough/suitable clients for the students

*

*

*

*

Legal and financial concerns

Medicare and private health rebate restrictions

*

*

Professional indemnity

*

Uncertainty about fees for student delivered services – a reduced fee or no fee?

*

Concerns for the client

Potential disruption to client care

*

Knowing what to/ should expect

Uncertain about students’ knowledge and skill levels, and university requirements Uncertain of own competency as a clinical educator

*

*

Weak and failing students

*

Maintaining income

*

* = found in data from this group

pathologists in this study reported that having students increased their access to the latest theory and evidence- based practice, as well as encouraged them to reflect on their own work practices, improving their standard and quality of clinical practice. A benefit reported by Group A only was that having students in private practice increased productivity of their service. Participants reported that with students, they were able to provide extra services to their clients at no extra cost or reach more clients, run group programs and quality assurance projects, and develop resources that would have otherwise not have been possible due to time constraints. To illustrate, a speech pathologist who worked in a school setting noted that “alone I can only cover [years] K–2. With [the students] we serviced [years] K–6; [students on placement] increased my capacity for advocacy for the children” (Participant 2) by supporting the clinician to run teacher training in-services and information sessions. Group A clinicians found that students in private practice could also reduce a clinician’s workload, in contrast to the perceived barrier expressed by Group B clinicians (see Table 3) that supervising student placements would increase their workload. Students not only increased clinicians’ service output in terms of producing programs and resources: “we get things done we otherwise wouldn’t have time for such as parent handouts, visual resources”

services, most of the challenges identified by the private practitioners are common concerns for clinical educators in public settings also (McAllister, Higgs, & Smith, 2008). Many of these barriers could potentially be addressed with information, briefings, training, and support from university staff. Concerns regarding potential loss of income appear to have been managed by those private practitioners who had supervised students. This knowledge of how to structure student placements in private practice so that income is not reduced needs to be documented and shared within the profession through professional activities (e.g., interest groups) and further research. Potential benefits of placements Table 4 shows that both groups of clinicians reported actual (Group A) or potential (Group B) benefits for their clients in having students on placement. Both groups of participants reported that supervising students fulfils a professional responsibility and obligation while making an impact by supporting the training of the future generation of clinicians. Also, both groups reported that student supervision brought with it, or could bring with it in the case of Group B, opportunities for professional development. Consistent with the findings of previous studies involving physio- therapists and occupational therapists (Doubt et al., 2004; MacPhail et al., 2011; Sloggett et al., 2003), speech

41

JCPSLP Volume 17, Number 1 2015

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au