Valoriser l’érudition chez les professionnels de la réadaptation de l’accident vasculaire cérébral : tout un défi!
Introduction: Stroke rehabilitation clinicians are responsible for offering quality services through evidence-based practice. This responsibility springs from the Scholar Role described in the CanMEDS framework. How is this role fulfilled in the clinical setting? Objective: 1) To explore the perceptions, experiences, and attitudes of rehabilitation professionals regarding their role as Scholar in their practice; 2) To identify factors that facilitate or hinder this role as scholar. Methods: Qualitative design with a phenomenological orientation. Face-to-face interviews were conducted among professional with at least two years experience in stroke rehabilitation using a pre-tested interview guide; Verbatims were coded using QDA-Miner software. Results: Mean age of the participants was 40.7 years ± 11.2. Participants were mostly women (n = 9/11). The role of scholar emerged as not having great value for the participants. Main themes emerging from the analysis include the following: 1) emphasis on tacit knowledge; 2) experience and clinical intuition leading to self-confidence and comfort in clinical practice; 3) dissatisfaction with the lack of knowledge sharing among clinicians; 4) importance of diversifying clinical tasks; 5) underdevelopment of reflective practice. The four factors influencing the role of scholar: motivation, critical incident as a trigger of reflective practice and interns facilitating reflective practice; lack of time acted as an obstacle. Conclusion: There is a discrepancy between the role of the scholar as described by the canMEDS framework and how it is actualized in clinical practice.
Knowledge Translation CanMEDS Evidence Based-Practice Reflective Practice Stroke Rehabilitation Scholar Role Tacit Knowledge