Clinical incidents involving students on placement: An analysis of incident reports to identify potential risk factors

Jamie GAIDA, Stephen Maloney, K Lo, P Morgan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Background: Students are sometimes involved in incidents during clinical training. To the authors' knowledge, no quantitative studies of incidents specifically involving physiotherapy students on clinical placement are available in the literature. Methods: A retrospective audit (2008 to 2011) of incident reports involving physiotherapy students was conducted to identify the nature and features of incidents. The study aimed to determine if injuries to a student or patient were more or less likely when the supervisor was in close proximity, and whether students with lower academic performance in their preclinical semester were more likely to be involved in an incident. Results: There were 19 care-delivery-related and three equipment-related incidents. There were no incidents of violent, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards students. The incident rate was 9.0/100,000 student-hours for third-year students and 6.8/100,000 student-hours for fourth-year students. The majority of incidents (55%) occurred from 11. am to 12-noon and from 3. pm to 3.30. pm. Incidents more often resulted in patient or student injury when the supervisor was not in close proximity (approximately 50% vs approximately 20%), although the difference was not significant (. P=. 0.336). The academic results of students involved in incidents were equivalent to the whole cohort in their preclinical semester {mean 75 [standard deviation (SD) 6] vs 76 (SD 7); P=. 0.488}. Conclusions: The unexpected temporal clustering of incidents warrants further investigation. Student fatigue may warrant attention as a potential contributor however, contextual factors, such as staff workload, along with organisational systems, structures and procedures may be more relevant. The potential relationship between supervisor proximity and injury also warrants further exploration. The findings of the present study should be integrated into clinical education curricula and communicated to clinical educators.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)219-225
    Number of pages7
    JournalPhysiotherapy (United Kingdom)
    Volume101
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2015

    Fingerprint

    Students
    Wounds and Injuries
    Workload
    Curriculum
    Fatigue
    Cluster Analysis
    Education
    Equipment and Supplies

    Cite this

    @article{38dcb78b87744e398b24610b53bbcc02,
    title = "Clinical incidents involving students on placement: An analysis of incident reports to identify potential risk factors",
    abstract = "Background: Students are sometimes involved in incidents during clinical training. To the authors' knowledge, no quantitative studies of incidents specifically involving physiotherapy students on clinical placement are available in the literature. Methods: A retrospective audit (2008 to 2011) of incident reports involving physiotherapy students was conducted to identify the nature and features of incidents. The study aimed to determine if injuries to a student or patient were more or less likely when the supervisor was in close proximity, and whether students with lower academic performance in their preclinical semester were more likely to be involved in an incident. Results: There were 19 care-delivery-related and three equipment-related incidents. There were no incidents of violent, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards students. The incident rate was 9.0/100,000 student-hours for third-year students and 6.8/100,000 student-hours for fourth-year students. The majority of incidents (55{\%}) occurred from 11. am to 12-noon and from 3. pm to 3.30. pm. Incidents more often resulted in patient or student injury when the supervisor was not in close proximity (approximately 50{\%} vs approximately 20{\%}), although the difference was not significant (. P=. 0.336). The academic results of students involved in incidents were equivalent to the whole cohort in their preclinical semester {mean 75 [standard deviation (SD) 6] vs 76 (SD 7); P=. 0.488}. Conclusions: The unexpected temporal clustering of incidents warrants further investigation. Student fatigue may warrant attention as a potential contributor however, contextual factors, such as staff workload, along with organisational systems, structures and procedures may be more relevant. The potential relationship between supervisor proximity and injury also warrants further exploration. The findings of the present study should be integrated into clinical education curricula and communicated to clinical educators.",
    author = "Jamie GAIDA and Stephen Maloney and K Lo and P Morgan",
    year = "2015",
    doi = "10.1016/j.physio.2014.06.006",
    language = "English",
    volume = "101",
    pages = "219--225",
    journal = "Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)",
    issn = "0031-9406",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "2",

    }

    Clinical incidents involving students on placement: An analysis of incident reports to identify potential risk factors. / GAIDA, Jamie; Maloney, Stephen; Lo, K; Morgan, P.

    In: Physiotherapy (United Kingdom), Vol. 101, No. 2, 2015, p. 219-225.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Clinical incidents involving students on placement: An analysis of incident reports to identify potential risk factors

    AU - GAIDA, Jamie

    AU - Maloney, Stephen

    AU - Lo, K

    AU - Morgan, P

    PY - 2015

    Y1 - 2015

    N2 - Background: Students are sometimes involved in incidents during clinical training. To the authors' knowledge, no quantitative studies of incidents specifically involving physiotherapy students on clinical placement are available in the literature. Methods: A retrospective audit (2008 to 2011) of incident reports involving physiotherapy students was conducted to identify the nature and features of incidents. The study aimed to determine if injuries to a student or patient were more or less likely when the supervisor was in close proximity, and whether students with lower academic performance in their preclinical semester were more likely to be involved in an incident. Results: There were 19 care-delivery-related and three equipment-related incidents. There were no incidents of violent, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards students. The incident rate was 9.0/100,000 student-hours for third-year students and 6.8/100,000 student-hours for fourth-year students. The majority of incidents (55%) occurred from 11. am to 12-noon and from 3. pm to 3.30. pm. Incidents more often resulted in patient or student injury when the supervisor was not in close proximity (approximately 50% vs approximately 20%), although the difference was not significant (. P=. 0.336). The academic results of students involved in incidents were equivalent to the whole cohort in their preclinical semester {mean 75 [standard deviation (SD) 6] vs 76 (SD 7); P=. 0.488}. Conclusions: The unexpected temporal clustering of incidents warrants further investigation. Student fatigue may warrant attention as a potential contributor however, contextual factors, such as staff workload, along with organisational systems, structures and procedures may be more relevant. The potential relationship between supervisor proximity and injury also warrants further exploration. The findings of the present study should be integrated into clinical education curricula and communicated to clinical educators.

    AB - Background: Students are sometimes involved in incidents during clinical training. To the authors' knowledge, no quantitative studies of incidents specifically involving physiotherapy students on clinical placement are available in the literature. Methods: A retrospective audit (2008 to 2011) of incident reports involving physiotherapy students was conducted to identify the nature and features of incidents. The study aimed to determine if injuries to a student or patient were more or less likely when the supervisor was in close proximity, and whether students with lower academic performance in their preclinical semester were more likely to be involved in an incident. Results: There were 19 care-delivery-related and three equipment-related incidents. There were no incidents of violent, aggressive or demeaning behaviour towards students. The incident rate was 9.0/100,000 student-hours for third-year students and 6.8/100,000 student-hours for fourth-year students. The majority of incidents (55%) occurred from 11. am to 12-noon and from 3. pm to 3.30. pm. Incidents more often resulted in patient or student injury when the supervisor was not in close proximity (approximately 50% vs approximately 20%), although the difference was not significant (. P=. 0.336). The academic results of students involved in incidents were equivalent to the whole cohort in their preclinical semester {mean 75 [standard deviation (SD) 6] vs 76 (SD 7); P=. 0.488}. Conclusions: The unexpected temporal clustering of incidents warrants further investigation. Student fatigue may warrant attention as a potential contributor however, contextual factors, such as staff workload, along with organisational systems, structures and procedures may be more relevant. The potential relationship between supervisor proximity and injury also warrants further exploration. The findings of the present study should be integrated into clinical education curricula and communicated to clinical educators.

    U2 - 10.1016/j.physio.2014.06.006

    DO - 10.1016/j.physio.2014.06.006

    M3 - Article

    VL - 101

    SP - 219

    EP - 225

    JO - Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)

    JF - Physiotherapy (United Kingdom)

    SN - 0031-9406

    IS - 2

    ER -