Upper Limb Self-Assessed Competency Survey Results
Stark, Gerald
Description
Collection
Title:
Upper Limb Self-Assessed Competency Survey Results
Creator:
Stark, Gerald
Date:
5/8/2013
Text:
Dear OandP Lists,
Thank you to everyone who took my Upper Limb Self-Assessed Competency Survey in April-March. As promised, I wanted to give you some of the results. I had 152 participants in the survey with 150 that completed it. The average years of experience was 17.8 years and 15.6 years with upper limb which has been consistent for on-line surveys. On average this group sees 8.4 upper limb patients per year, however this is much greater among those with more experience. For the work setting the largest group, 59.7%, work at Privately-Owned companies. 22.8% work for Institutions including hospitals, education, and research settings. Corporate-owned clinics represented 10.1%. Smaller groups were at Manufacturer/Central Fabrication settings at 4.0% and Private Consultants 3.4%.
Of the participants 23.8% considered themselves Novices, 49.0% Intermediates, 12.8% Experts and 13.4% Specialists. What is interesting is that 72.8% consider themselves Novices-Intermediates while 26.2% are Experts-Specialists. This would indicate that most people do not consider themselves at a high level with upper extremity.
I wanted to understand the differences in opinions between the E-S Group and the N-I group as well as the settings between the those in Private/Corporate ownership and those in Privately-Owned companies. When I compared the two groups, a greater number of the N-I group were in Private Clinics at 62% to the E-S group at 44% who included a greater number of populations as 8.3% and 5.5% of manufacturers and consultants. The N-I group had 2.9% and 0% for those groups. The E-S group reported seeing an average 24 patients per year while 22% reported seeing more than 50. The N-I group saw only 3 patients per year.
As expected greater numbers of the E-I group saw themselves as Innovators at 44% to the N-I group with 29%. The N-I group also had a substantial number of laggards with 28% of their group while the E-S group had only 2.7%. The numbers of internal collaborators for the N-I and the E-S group were similar with an average of 1.35 and 1.36 respectively, but the number of external collaborators was dramatically different. The N-I group had 1.76 but the E-S group had 3.42 this seems very significant in that the external collaborators was almost double on average. The Experts at Institution/Corporate settings had even greater external contacts at 4.85 compared to experts at Private settings at 2.28.
The distribution of the “Reasons for Lack of Confidence” were very similar but Too few patients was higher for the N-I group and Personal Confidence and Materials was slightly higher for the E-I group. When asked a number of statements, both groups indicated that they were not apprehensive about asking for help, but the E-I group was slightly more neutral with this question at 2.12 than the N-I group at 1.80.
The E-I group seemed more confident when approaching new projects at 4.75 while the N-I group indicated they were at 4.01. Also the N-I group indicated agreed they were not up to date on external power with a 3.36 rating while the E-I group disagreed with a 2.36.
The E-S group felt that socket design was more important than than the N-I group who felt component design was slightly more important. Both groups felt equally about patient training and fabrication, but Patient variation was greater with the E-I group who see more variation than the N-I group.
With opinions, the E-I group slightly disagreed more that external power was less durable at 3.03 but the N-I group agreed with this more at 3.27. Both disagreed that body power is outdated at 1.39 and 2.03 respectively. Both also agreed that most patients would benefit from both approaches. However the E-S group feels they are slightly more innovative by nature and do not necessarily agree that everyone can learn upper limb. The N-I group disagrees with this more and believes anyone can become a specialist with patient experience and advise from an expert.
With the different ways to become a specialist, both groups agree that experience is best. The N-I group relies on more on didactic references and the E-S group uses external advice more slightly. The N-I group also relies on more expert training and manufacturer seminars.
As a whole the survey verifies that external links are at least 2X as many with the Expert-Specialist Group and 3X among those in institutions and corporate ownership. The E-S group also believes it has a slightly more innate innovative spirit and the N-I group lacks a confidence with components mores specifically. It does seem both, believe of a systems approach using body and external power together is best.
I hope this is interesting to you, and thanks again to all who participated,
Gerry
Gerald Stark, MSEM, CPO/L, FAAOP
Senior Upper Limb Clinical Specialist
Ottobock
14800 28th Avenue N., Suite 175
Minneapolis, MN 55447-4873
M 612.2707363
F 763.519.6152
<Email Address Redacted> <mailto:<Email Address Redacted>>
www.ottobockus.com< <URL Redacted>>
Confidential:
This email or the documents accompanying this transmission may contain protected health or other confidential information. The information contained in this e-mail is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any improper disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or its accompanying documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email or the documents accompanying this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message.
Thank you to everyone who took my Upper Limb Self-Assessed Competency Survey in April-March. As promised, I wanted to give you some of the results. I had 152 participants in the survey with 150 that completed it. The average years of experience was 17.8 years and 15.6 years with upper limb which has been consistent for on-line surveys. On average this group sees 8.4 upper limb patients per year, however this is much greater among those with more experience. For the work setting the largest group, 59.7%, work at Privately-Owned companies. 22.8% work for Institutions including hospitals, education, and research settings. Corporate-owned clinics represented 10.1%. Smaller groups were at Manufacturer/Central Fabrication settings at 4.0% and Private Consultants 3.4%.
Of the participants 23.8% considered themselves Novices, 49.0% Intermediates, 12.8% Experts and 13.4% Specialists. What is interesting is that 72.8% consider themselves Novices-Intermediates while 26.2% are Experts-Specialists. This would indicate that most people do not consider themselves at a high level with upper extremity.
I wanted to understand the differences in opinions between the E-S Group and the N-I group as well as the settings between the those in Private/Corporate ownership and those in Privately-Owned companies. When I compared the two groups, a greater number of the N-I group were in Private Clinics at 62% to the E-S group at 44% who included a greater number of populations as 8.3% and 5.5% of manufacturers and consultants. The N-I group had 2.9% and 0% for those groups. The E-S group reported seeing an average 24 patients per year while 22% reported seeing more than 50. The N-I group saw only 3 patients per year.
As expected greater numbers of the E-I group saw themselves as Innovators at 44% to the N-I group with 29%. The N-I group also had a substantial number of laggards with 28% of their group while the E-S group had only 2.7%. The numbers of internal collaborators for the N-I and the E-S group were similar with an average of 1.35 and 1.36 respectively, but the number of external collaborators was dramatically different. The N-I group had 1.76 but the E-S group had 3.42 this seems very significant in that the external collaborators was almost double on average. The Experts at Institution/Corporate settings had even greater external contacts at 4.85 compared to experts at Private settings at 2.28.
The distribution of the “Reasons for Lack of Confidence” were very similar but Too few patients was higher for the N-I group and Personal Confidence and Materials was slightly higher for the E-I group. When asked a number of statements, both groups indicated that they were not apprehensive about asking for help, but the E-I group was slightly more neutral with this question at 2.12 than the N-I group at 1.80.
The E-I group seemed more confident when approaching new projects at 4.75 while the N-I group indicated they were at 4.01. Also the N-I group indicated agreed they were not up to date on external power with a 3.36 rating while the E-I group disagreed with a 2.36.
The E-S group felt that socket design was more important than than the N-I group who felt component design was slightly more important. Both groups felt equally about patient training and fabrication, but Patient variation was greater with the E-I group who see more variation than the N-I group.
With opinions, the E-I group slightly disagreed more that external power was less durable at 3.03 but the N-I group agreed with this more at 3.27. Both disagreed that body power is outdated at 1.39 and 2.03 respectively. Both also agreed that most patients would benefit from both approaches. However the E-S group feels they are slightly more innovative by nature and do not necessarily agree that everyone can learn upper limb. The N-I group disagrees with this more and believes anyone can become a specialist with patient experience and advise from an expert.
With the different ways to become a specialist, both groups agree that experience is best. The N-I group relies on more on didactic references and the E-S group uses external advice more slightly. The N-I group also relies on more expert training and manufacturer seminars.
As a whole the survey verifies that external links are at least 2X as many with the Expert-Specialist Group and 3X among those in institutions and corporate ownership. The E-S group also believes it has a slightly more innate innovative spirit and the N-I group lacks a confidence with components mores specifically. It does seem both, believe of a systems approach using body and external power together is best.
I hope this is interesting to you, and thanks again to all who participated,
Gerry
Gerald Stark, MSEM, CPO/L, FAAOP
Senior Upper Limb Clinical Specialist
Ottobock
14800 28th Avenue N., Suite 175
Minneapolis, MN 55447-4873
M 612.2707363
F 763.519.6152
<Email Address Redacted> <mailto:<Email Address Redacted>>
www.ottobockus.com< <URL Redacted>>
Confidential:
This email or the documents accompanying this transmission may contain protected health or other confidential information. The information contained in this e-mail is intended solely for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any improper disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this e-mail or its accompanying documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email or the documents accompanying this transmission in error, immediately notify the sender by e-mail and delete the original message.
Citation
Stark, Gerald, “Upper Limb Self-Assessed Competency Survey Results,” Digital Resource Foundation for Orthotics and Prosthetics, accessed November 26, 2024, https://library.drfop.org/items/show/235210.
