Improving Athletic Trainers' Knowledge of Clinical Documentation Through Novel Educational Interventions: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Abstract

Context: Athletic trainers (ATs) have reported the need for more educational resources about clinical documentation.

Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of passive and active educational interventions to improve practicing ATs' clinical documentation knowledge.

Design: Randomized controlled trial, sequential explanatory mixed methods study.

Setting: Online module(s), knowledge assessment, and interviews.

Patients or other participants: We emailed 18 981 practicing ATs across employment settings, of which 524 ATs were enrolled into a group (personalized learning pathway [PLP = 178], passive reading list [PAS = 176], control [CON = 170]) then took the knowledge assessment. A total of 364 ATs did not complete the intervention or postknowledge assessment; therefore, complete responses from 160 ATs (PLP = 39, PAS = 44, CON = 77; age = 36.6 ± 11.2 years, years certified = 13.9 ± 10.7) were analyzed.

Main outcome measure(s): Knowledge assessment (34 items) and interview guides (12-13 items) were developed, validated, and piloted with ATs before study commencement. We summed correct responses (1 point each, 34 points maximum) and calculated percentages and preknowledge and postknowledge mean change scores. Differences among groups (PLP, PAS, CON) and time (preintervention, postintervention) were calculated using a 3 × 2 repeated-measures analysis of variance (P ≤ .05) with post hoc Tukey HSD. Semistructured interviews were conducted (PLP = 15, PAS = 14), recorded, transcribed, and analyzed following the consensual qualitative research tradition.

Results: No differences in the preknowledge assessment were observed between groups. We observed a group × time interaction (F2,157 = 15.30, P < .001; partial η2 = 0.16). The PLP group exhibited greater mean change (M = 3.0 ± 2.7) than the PAS (M = 1.7 ± 3.0, P = .049) and CON (M = 0.4 ± 2.2, P < .001) groups. Descriptively, ATs scored lowest on the legal (61.3% ± 2.1%), value of the AT (63.7% ± 4.3%), and health information technology (65.3% ± 3.7%) items. Whereas ATs described being confident in their documentation knowledge, they also identified key content (eg, legal considerations, strategies) which they deemed valuable.

Conclusions: The educational interventions improved ATs' knowledge of clinical documentation and provided valuable resources for their clinical practice; however, targeted continuing education is needed to address knowledge gaps.