New graduate physiotherapists’ perceived preparedness for clinical practice. A cross-sectional survey

Abstract

Objectives

The study aimed to explore new United Kingdom (UK) graduate physiotherapists’ perceived preparedness for clinical practice to provide valuable information to support curriculum development.

Methods

An online, mixed method cross-sectional questionnaire was used. Newly qualified UK physiotherapists completed a survey, capturing how physiotherapy degrees prepared them for practice against (1) UK proficiency standards and (2) cross-discipline physiotherapy related clinical skills. Respondents were asked for reflections of their degree course including teaching and effectiveness. Data were converted into proportions with a 95% confidence interval. Likert-scale questions were treated as numeric variables with the mean and standard deviation (SD) calculated for combined responses. Thematic analysis reported patterns of data extracted from open-ended questions.

Results

Of a total of 376 respondents, 365 were included in data analysis. Overall respondents perceived that courses prepared them ‘well’ against 12 of the 15 standards, on a Likert scale of 1–5. Respondents reported that perceived competence was ‘indifferent’ for manual therapy skills (mean 3.14 ± SD 1.13), red flag (3.45 ± 1.11) and clinical flag management (2.92 ± 1.16). Exercise prescription (2.42 ± 1.35), psychosocial skills (2.27 ± 1.23) and patient management (2.41 ± 1.12) were areas identified for further teaching focus. Placements were the preferred teaching method most applicable to practice followed by practical seminars.

Conclusion

Respondents felt sufficiently prepared for practice against UK proficiency standards but not physiotherapy related clinical skills. Areas for curricula development included exercise prescription, psychology and pain management.

Keywords:

• Physiotherapy education
• professional standards
• graduating physiotherapy students
• physiotherapy
• prepared for practice

Ethical approval

The School of Health and Life Sciences ethics committee at Teesside University approved the study. Study No. 250/19.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflict of interest.