物理治疗学生报告课堂学习的血压指南,并在临床经验中观察和实践

Ted L. Marks, Sarah Leah Berg, Batsheva Granek, Peter Rybakov, Irina Taranenko, Dana Yee, Ralph K. Garcia
{"title":"物理治疗学生报告课堂学习的血压指南,并在临床经验中观察和实践","authors":"Ted L. Marks, Sarah Leah Berg, Batsheva Granek, Peter Rybakov, Irina Taranenko, Dana Yee, Ralph K. Garcia","doi":"10.1097/CPT.0000000000000145","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to investigate discrepancies between what physical therapy students report learning in the classroom regarding blood pressure (BP) guidelines and what physical therapy students report observing and practicing in clinical settings and (2) to establish whether students felt discomfort when discrepancies were encountered. Methods: This was a prospective descriptive survey study generated using a sample of convenience employing a survey developed by the researchers. Face and content validity were established through expert review. An email was sent to 21 New York State Physical Therapy Programs asking each program to share the survey with students in their programs who had completed clinical experiences. The responses were analyzed descriptively using frequency counts, percentages, and cross tabulations. Results: Responses were received from 206 students attending 13 different programs, or 61.9% of the programs contacted. More than half the students (53.4%) reported there were differences between what they learned during classroom instruction regarding BP assessment and what they saw and practiced in the clinic; 24.8% of students expressed discomfort related to discrepancies between what they learned in school and what they saw and practiced in the clinic. Inpatient and outpatient experiences were compared. Statistical differences were found indicating patients had their BP assessed less often in outpatient settings. In addition, students were less likely to discuss BP assessment with their clinical instructors (CIs) in outpatient settings and students were more likely to express increased competence taking BP after inpatient clinical experiences. Across all settings, 20.4% of students reported that neither they nor their CI ever measured BP during their most recent clinical experience. Conclusions: Across all settings, the BP assessment practices that students encounter in clinic differ from what students report learning is best practice during their physical therapy education. Students are more likely to encounter discrepancies in outpatient settings. For many students, encountering discrepancies gives rise to feelings of discomfort.","PeriodicalId":72526,"journal":{"name":"Cardiopulmonary physical therapy journal","volume":"32 1","pages":"86 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physical Therapy Student Reports of Blood Pressure Guidelines Learned in the Classroom, and Observed and Practiced in Clinical Experiences\",\"authors\":\"Ted L. Marks, Sarah Leah Berg, Batsheva Granek, Peter Rybakov, Irina Taranenko, Dana Yee, Ralph K. Garcia\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CPT.0000000000000145\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to investigate discrepancies between what physical therapy students report learning in the classroom regarding blood pressure (BP) guidelines and what physical therapy students report observing and practicing in clinical settings and (2) to establish whether students felt discomfort when discrepancies were encountered. Methods: This was a prospective descriptive survey study generated using a sample of convenience employing a survey developed by the researchers. Face and content validity were established through expert review. An email was sent to 21 New York State Physical Therapy Programs asking each program to share the survey with students in their programs who had completed clinical experiences. The responses were analyzed descriptively using frequency counts, percentages, and cross tabulations. Results: Responses were received from 206 students attending 13 different programs, or 61.9% of the programs contacted. More than half the students (53.4%) reported there were differences between what they learned during classroom instruction regarding BP assessment and what they saw and practiced in the clinic; 24.8% of students expressed discomfort related to discrepancies between what they learned in school and what they saw and practiced in the clinic. Inpatient and outpatient experiences were compared. Statistical differences were found indicating patients had their BP assessed less often in outpatient settings. In addition, students were less likely to discuss BP assessment with their clinical instructors (CIs) in outpatient settings and students were more likely to express increased competence taking BP after inpatient clinical experiences. Across all settings, 20.4% of students reported that neither they nor their CI ever measured BP during their most recent clinical experience. Conclusions: Across all settings, the BP assessment practices that students encounter in clinic differ from what students report learning is best practice during their physical therapy education. Students are more likely to encounter discrepancies in outpatient settings. For many students, encountering discrepancies gives rise to feelings of discomfort.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72526,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiopulmonary physical therapy journal\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"86 - 96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiopulmonary physical therapy journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CPT.0000000000000145\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiopulmonary physical therapy journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CPT.0000000000000145","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是:(1)调查学生报告在课堂上学习的关于血压(BP)指南的物理治疗与学生报告在临床环境中观察和实践的物理治疗之间的差异;(2)确定学生在遇到差异时是否感到不适。方法:这是一项前瞻性描述性调查研究,使用方便的样本,采用研究人员开发的调查。通过专家评审建立了面孔效度和内容效度。一封电子邮件被发送到21个纽约州物理治疗项目,要求每个项目与他们项目中完成临床经验的学生分享调查结果。使用频率计数、百分比和交叉表对响应进行描述性分析。结果:我们收到了来自13个不同项目的206名学生的回复,占被联系项目的61.9%。超过一半的学生(53.4%)报告说,他们在课堂上学到的关于血压评估的知识与他们在诊所看到和实践的知识存在差异;24.8%的学生表示,他们在学校学到的东西与他们在诊所看到和实践的东西之间存在差异,这让他们感到不适。比较住院和门诊经历。统计差异表明患者在门诊检查血压的频率较低。此外,学生不太可能在门诊环境中与他们的临床导师(ci)讨论血压评估,学生在住院临床经历后更有可能表达出更高的血压测试能力。在所有情况下,20.4%的学生报告说,他们和他们的CI在最近的临床经历中都没有测量过血压。结论:在所有情况下,学生在临床中遇到的BP评估实践与学生在物理治疗教育中报告的最佳实践有所不同。学生更有可能在门诊环境中遇到差异。对许多学生来说,遇到不一致的地方会产生不舒服的感觉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Physical Therapy Student Reports of Blood Pressure Guidelines Learned in the Classroom, and Observed and Practiced in Clinical Experiences
Purpose: The purposes of this study were (1) to investigate discrepancies between what physical therapy students report learning in the classroom regarding blood pressure (BP) guidelines and what physical therapy students report observing and practicing in clinical settings and (2) to establish whether students felt discomfort when discrepancies were encountered. Methods: This was a prospective descriptive survey study generated using a sample of convenience employing a survey developed by the researchers. Face and content validity were established through expert review. An email was sent to 21 New York State Physical Therapy Programs asking each program to share the survey with students in their programs who had completed clinical experiences. The responses were analyzed descriptively using frequency counts, percentages, and cross tabulations. Results: Responses were received from 206 students attending 13 different programs, or 61.9% of the programs contacted. More than half the students (53.4%) reported there were differences between what they learned during classroom instruction regarding BP assessment and what they saw and practiced in the clinic; 24.8% of students expressed discomfort related to discrepancies between what they learned in school and what they saw and practiced in the clinic. Inpatient and outpatient experiences were compared. Statistical differences were found indicating patients had their BP assessed less often in outpatient settings. In addition, students were less likely to discuss BP assessment with their clinical instructors (CIs) in outpatient settings and students were more likely to express increased competence taking BP after inpatient clinical experiences. Across all settings, 20.4% of students reported that neither they nor their CI ever measured BP during their most recent clinical experience. Conclusions: Across all settings, the BP assessment practices that students encounter in clinic differ from what students report learning is best practice during their physical therapy education. Students are more likely to encounter discrepancies in outpatient settings. For many students, encountering discrepancies gives rise to feelings of discomfort.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Associations between Physical Activity, Systemic Inflammation, and Hospital Admissions in Adults with Heart Failure. From the Swimming Pool to Precision Cardiovascular Physical Therapy: What a Journey! Commentary on “Diagnosis of Deep Vein Thrombosis in Outpatients With Musculoskeletal Disorders: A Survey of Orthopedic and Sports Academies” Professional Community Simulation-Based Cardiopulmonary Examination Skills Checklist: Assessment of Inter-rater Reliability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1