The experience of disabled students in UK higher education has been the subject of research for many years, particularly following legislation in 2001 that introduced responsibilities on universities to make reasonable adjustments for disabled students. Most of this research has focused solely on the experience of disabled students, and typically only within one discipline, with limited comparison with their non-disabled peers; particularly in the context of students’ experience on practice placements where professional competencies are developed and assessed. This thesis therefore sought to address this gap in the research by investigating the experience of disabled and non-disabled students on practice placements across six professional disciplines, utilising a mixed methods research design. Students at a Scottish University who were studying medicine, nursing, dentistry, education, social work or community education were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey and a follow-up semi-structured interview. These particular disciplines were selected on the basis of enabling comparison with previous research and also to explore the dichotomy between the social and medical approaches to disability; and the potential impact of these approaches on the experience of disabled students. Over 350 students responded to the survey from all six disciplines and a total of 21 interviews were conducted with disabled and non-disabled students. The results were also compared with the student placement feedback obtained independently by the individual disciplines involved in the research. Many students provided positive feedback on their placement experience and clearly valued this as preparation for their future careers. The students’ relationship with their placement supervisor was also clearly an influence on the quality of their placement experience. However, statistical analyses revealed that disabled students’ overall rating for their placement experience was lower than that of non-disabled students, and that disabled students experienced more difficulties on placement. Subsequent thematic analysis of students’ qualitative responses revealed that, although disabled and non-disabled students reported similar issues, these were exacerbated for some disabled students by the nature of their impairment or the attitudes of others to disability. Indeed, there was evidence that a medical model approach to disability was more prevalent in the disciplines of medicine and nursing. It was also clear that some disabled students did not identify with the terms ‘disabled’ or ‘disability’. The results of this study highlighted in particular the need for a review of disability disclosure procedures in the placement context and for clarity in the role and responsibilities of placement staff. Recommendations for practice are identified that aim to enhance the placement experience of all students and to remove any barriers to access; ensuring disabled students are not disadvantaged in the placement context and their needs are appropriately met.

No

Yes / Sourcing healthcare practice placements continues to present a challenge for higher education institutions. Equally, the provision of clinical placements by healthcare providers is not at the forefront of their agenda. In view of this, the historic and traditional models of clinical placements is becoming more difficult to provide. In light of this, new models of clinical placements are being explored. Aims: This literature review explores the differing models of clinical placements in use and examines the merits and limitation of each. Methods: A mixed-methods literature review with a pragmatic approach has been used. Findings: Several placement models were described, including the traditional 1:1 model as well as 2:1, 3:1. The hub and spoke, capacity development facilitator, collaborative learning in practice and role emerging placement models were also discussed. Conclusion: There is a considerable paucity of high-quality evidence evaluating differing placement modules. Further research is required to evaluate the differing placement models from a students, clinical educators and service user’s perspective.

Background: Government policy has placed greater emphasis upon health professional students gaining practical experience in real-world environments. Given the fairly new inception of the role of clinical educator in podiatry there is a paucity of research in the area of practice placement in podiatry. Research aims: Within an action research framework, the first phase focused upon exploring the capacity of clinical educators to engage with the role of mentoring, alongside the factors that might impact upon that capacity. The second phase of the project investigated the impact of a teaching tool within the placement area when utilised by clinical educators and students. Methods: The pilot study utilised established questionnaire development methods to create a survey and scale to measure clinical educators’ capacity to engage with the role. The second phase of the project used a range of qualitative data collection methods analysed using framework analysis to analyse the utility of the teaching and learning tool. Findings: Phase I resulted in a 70-item scale measuring the capacity of clinical educators to engage with the role of clinical educator and the identification of four independent variables predictive of a significant proportion of the variability of the dependent variable, capacity to engage with clinical education. Phase II confirmed the utility of the teaching and learning tool to support clinical educators and students during the placement period. An inductive placement model, explanatory of the super-complexity of the environment where the clinical educator endeavours to monitor, modify and manage the placement scope, was developed. Conclusions: In an area where research is currently scant, this study contributed to practice-based education in podiatry and to current understanding of how clinical educators undertake this complex and responsible role. This is an important area for research given the influence clinical educators have to shape and guide the next generation of podiatry professionals.