The Impact of Physical Therapy Postprofessional Education Programs on Productivity in a Large Academic Medical Center
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Emerging evidence shows positive impact of postprofessional physical therapy education (residency and fellowship) specific to participants; however, outcomes on organizational impact are largely unknown. The purpose of this project was to describe the impact residency and fellowship training has on financial metrics. A secondary purpose of this case study was to describe trends associated with higher productivity. REVIEW OF LITERATURE: Previous studies have demonstrated positive professional behavior and generalized operational impact of postprofessional education. No studies have evaluated the impact of residency and fellowship training on individual physical therapist (PT) productivity. SUBJECTS: Individual productivity from 191 PTs was collected over a 10-year time frame from a large, ambulatory, rehabilitation department within an academic medical center. Productivity was compared between 4 groups: nonresidency- or fellowship-trained clinicians; residency-trained clinicians; fellowship-trained clinicians; and dual residency and fellowship-trained clinicians. METHODS: Physical therapists' productivity data were manually extracted retrospectively from operational reports over a 10-year period. Additional data elements extracted included the following: board specialty certification and years employed at the medical center. Data were then categorized as nonresidency/fellowship -trained, residency trained, fellowship trained, or dual residency and fellowship trained. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: Forty-five clinicians with postprofessional training collectively produced $253,617 more in financial annual return to the organization. Fellowship-trained clinicians demonstrated the highest productivity followed by residency-trained and dual residency and fellowship-trained clinicians. Specialty board certification also positively increased productivity regardless of postprofessional training. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Postprofessional training within physical therapy continues to be evaluated in the spectrum of professional development. Evidence supports positive professional behaviors and patient outcomes; however, little is known regarding its impact on productivity metrics. Although no significance was found between the groups with and without postprofessional training, meaningful financial return was demonstrated in clinicians with postprofessional training. The lack of significance may have been influenced by compression because of departmental productivity guidelines. This preliminary data may assist organizations in justifying resources for sustaining and sponsoring future programs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».