Open AccessA survey to evaluate the implementation of a national clinical assessment form
Author(s) -
Giles E,
Dempsey S,
Chiswell M,
Wright C,
Bridge P,
Charlton N
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
radiographer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.484
H-Index - 18
eISSN - 2051-3909
pISSN - 0033-8273
DOI - 10.1002/j.2051-3909.2012.tb00179.x
Subject(s) - grading (engineering) , nonprobability sampling , medical education , medicine , multiple choice , psychology , family medicine , significant difference , environmental health , engineering , population , civil engineering
Purpose : The Australian Universities Radiation Therapy Student Clinical Assessment Form (AURTSCAF) was designed to assess the clinical skills of radiation therapy (RT) students from the six universities that offer entry level RT programs. Given the AURTSCAF has now been in use for over two years, the Radiation Therapy Program Coordinators (RTPC) group initiated a post implementation evaluation survey. This formed the final phase of the AURTSCAF project and was funded by the Radiation Oncology Division of the Department of Health and Ageing. Methods : A cross‐sectional designed survey using purposive sampling was distributed via email to all RT clinical sites. The survey asked questions about the requirements of a pass grade for students at different stages of their program, and the addition of a new category of assessment related to fitness to practise. Response types included both forced choice closed ended responses and open ended responses. There was also a section for open comments about the AURTSCAF. Results : There were 100 responses (55%) from clinicians who had utilised the assessment form over the previous 12 month period. Responses highlighted several positives with regard to the utility and implementation of the form. Comments regarding areas for improvement with the standardisation of the grading of students and consensus for the addition of a new domain in fitness for practise have informed the recommended changes proposed for 2012. Conclusion : This evaluation has provided a representative sample of the views of clinicians involved in assessing students on clinical placement. Recommendations include the addition of the sixth domain of assessment: Fitness for practise, the addition of descriptors and prompts for this domain in the user guide, the addition of a consensus statement about the use of the rating scale and dissemination of the proposed changes nationally.