↓ Skip to main content

Reconsidering inherent requirements: a contribution to the debate from the clinical placement experience of a physiotherapy student with vision impairment

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reconsidering inherent requirements: a contribution to the debate from the clinical placement experience of a physiotherapy student with vision impairment
Published in
BMC Medical Education, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12909-016-0598-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kylie N. Johnston, Shylie Mackintosh, Matthew Alcock, Amy Conlon-Leard, Stephen Manson

Abstract

Clinical placements in acute hospitals present challenges for students with vision impairment who are being educated as health care professionals. Legislation in Australia supports reasonable adjustments to education, thus students with vision impairment have completed accredited courses and gained professional registration. However the implementation of inherent requirement statements suggesting that adequate visual acuity is required to complete a physiotherapy program may create barriers to access for such students. We describe features that contributed to a successful physiotherapy clinical placement in an acute hospital setting for a student with vision impairment and use this experience to prompt debate about the use of inherent requirement statements. Planning, consultation, collaboration and problem solving commencing from the time of program entry were integral to clinical placement preparation for this student. Individualised adjustments (including a support worker for reading screens and medical records) and the student's specific qualities (professionalism, communication, problem solving, memory, kinaesthetic abilities) contributed to a successful outcome. Reflecting on this experience and published inherent requirements, there is an apparent lack of involvement of people with disability in the development of inherent requirement statements; we question the need for this level of regulation; and discuss the potential impact of inherent requirement statements on the health workforce. This experience demonstrated that an individualised approach to reasonable adjustments for a student with a disability was successful in an acute hospital setting. The implementation of inherent requirement statements may systemically reduce the capacity of education providers to develop such bespoke solutions and deserves further debate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Other 5 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 12 23%
Social Sciences 10 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 15%
Psychology 3 6%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 14 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 April 2018.
All research outputs
#15,362,070
of 22,852,911 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,262
of 3,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#176,423
of 297,542 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#61
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,852,911 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 297,542 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.