Quality Improvement Content in Physical Therapist Education: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature regarding teaching quality improvement (QI) in physical therapist education based on the Institute of Medicine's 6-element definition of QI. Educational activities in QI methods in physical therapist professional education curricula, their developmental stage, and their level of evaluation were described. METHODS: Keywords related to physical therapist students and QI educational activities were used to search studies indexed in PubMed, CINAHL, and ERIC published from 2004 through November 2020. This search yielded 118 studies. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 13 studies were retained for full-text review, which was conducted independently by 2 reviewers. The University of Toronto framework was used to assess developmental stage, and Kirkpatrick's taxonomy was used to assess the evaluation level of 4 retained studies. RESULTS: The scope of QI educational activities in the 4 retained studies was limited to 3 of the 6 elements of QI: identifying opportunities for improvement, designing and testing interventions, and identifying errors and hazards in care. None of the studies included educational activities to teach understanding and measuring quality of care. Three of the 4 studies spanned the first 2 stages of the University of Toronto framework (exposure and immersion); 1 study was limited to exposure. None of the studies assessed competence in QI methods. Evaluation of QI education was limited to Kirkpatrick levels 1 (reaction) or 2 (learning). None of the studies evaluated activities at level 3 (transfer of new behaviors) or level 4 (results). CONCLUSION: Education in QI methods in professional physical therapist curricula may be limited in scope due to constraints in physical therapist education and the strategic objective of the profession to differentiate itself from other professions. IMPACT: Entry-level physical therapists might not be educated to fully participate in interprofessional teams that use QI methods to continuously improve the quality of patient-centered care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.054 | 0.174 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.041 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".