The ACAPT Clinical Education (CE) Reactor Panel is a national group of clinical educators, faculty, and leaders committed to shaping the future of PT and PTA clinical education. Panelists provide ongoing feedback through brief survey sections and live facilitated discussions throughout the year. This is an opportunity to ensure that real-world clinical education perspectives directly inform ACAPT priorities, initiatives, and advocacy.
What is the CE Reactor Panel?
The Clinical Education (CE) Reactor Panel was established by the ACAPT CE Commission as a deliberate mechanism to gather timely, relevant feedback from the clinical education community. This panel is designed to amplify the voice of those engaged directly in Physical Therapy clinical education—those shaping student experiences, addressing challenges, and driving innovation across the academic and clinical continuum.
The Reactor Panel is designed to be representative of the diversity of the clinical education community. The panel includes Clinical Instructors (CIs), Site Coordinators of Clinical Education (SCCEs), Directors of Clinical Education (DCEs), Assistant Directors of Clinical Education (ADCEs), and other engaged members of the clinical education community. Participation spans both physical therapist (PT) and physical therapist assistant (PTA) programs and intentionally seeks a range of perspectives across geographic regions, settings, and experience levels.
The CE Commission selected 30 individuals - approximately 57% DCE/faculty/program director, 33% clinical, and 10% physical therapy assistant representation - to join in staggered terms and contribute their voices to the collective.
How was the panel structure and survey developed?
The framework for the Reactor Panel—including volunteer expectations, governance, and engagement process—was collaboratively developed through the CE Commission and dedicated workgroup efforts. The panel operates with a three-year term structure, staggered for continuity, with participation expectations designed to be approachable and flexible.
Each year panelists will be invited to complete a portion of the Reactor Panel survey in five distinct sections released across the year, with each section estimated to take approximately 45 minutes to complete. Following the release of each survey section, the CE Commission will host a corresponding “Live Reactor Panel” discussion facilitated by a CE Commission member. These live sessions are intended to explore themes emerging from survey responses, clarify perspectives, and capture nuance that cannot be fully reflected through written feedback alone.
For the inaugural year, Live Reactor Panel discussions will be held on Wednesdays from 6:30–7:30 pm ET on June 24, 2026; August 26, 2026; December 2, 2026; February 24, 2027; and April 28, 2027. Panelists are asked to participate in at least two of the five live discussions during the year. Future schedules will be established annually and shared in advance to support planning and continuity.
The goal is to ensure broad, diverse representation while maintaining a low barrier to entry for panelists. Your voice—whether from a local, regional, or national lens—matters in this process.
What will this survey ask?
This survey represents the first formal feedback mechanism of the CE Reactor Panel. It has been structured to gather both quantitative “pulse” data and qualitative insights across key focus areas:
- Accessibility & Equity in Clinical Education
- Capacity and Support for Clinical Educators
- Trends in Clinical Education
- Student Experience & Outcomes
- Stakeholder Engagement & Communication
Each section begins with a brief pulse question using a Likert scale, focused on your personal role and experience—not the system as a whole. These pulse questions are followed by open-ended prompts designed to capture your deeper thoughts, perspectives, and real-world insights.
How will your feedback be used?
Your responses will directly inform the CE Commission’s understanding of current trends, challenges, and opportunities within clinical education. This feedback will:
- Guide CE Commission priorities and recommendations to the ACAPT Board of Directors.
- Help shape future initiatives, programming, and resource development.
- Support advocacy efforts and ensure that solutions remain informed by the lived experiences of clinical educators.
Additionally, this space will allow the CE Commission to mobilize the Panel when emerging or unforeseen issues arise in physical therapy education, enabling real-time input from a representative group of clinical educators and strengthening ACAPT’s ability to respond quickly and thoughtfully to evolving needs.
Summary reports and key findings will be shared back with the Reactor Panel and the broader clinical education community. The aim is to ensure transparency, foster continued dialogue, and support data-informed decision-making.
What is the time commitment summarized?
- Five survey sections per year - approximately 45 minutes each
- Participate in 2 of 4 Live Reactor Panel discussions for 60 minutes each
- Light asynchronous engagement via the ACAPT FLEX community
Estimated annual commitment:
Approximately 5–7 hours spread across the year for a three-year term. Inaugural call will have both two and three-year terms to stagger participation.
Updates
The CE Reactor Panel has completed the first section of its 2026-2027 survey cycle, focused on accessibility and equity in clinical education. We received 29 responses, reflecting approximately 97% participation from the panel. Respondents represent a broad mix of clinical education stakeholders, including DCEs, CIs, SCCEs, academic leaders, program administrators, faculty, and clinical partners.
The CE Commission workgroup is now reviewing the responses and preparing for a September 2nd Reactor Panel debrief. This is an early review, not a final report, and the goal is to use the panel’s feedback to better understand emerging patterns, clarify language, and identify areas where the Commission may be able to support future work.
Early areas for discussion include placement availability, geography and transportation, CI/SCCE capacity, financial burden, housing, cultural competence preparation, student stress, and mental health and well-being supports.
One valuable outcome already emerging is the need to clarify shared terminology. For example, the responses suggest that “equitable access” may mean more than whether a placement exists. Panelists appear to be raising questions related to placement quality, student readiness, support, fit, accommodations, cost, travel, housing, and the clinical learning environment. This may create a meaningful opportunity for collaboration with the Common Terminology Glossary group.
Before the September 2nd debrief, the workgroup plans to post clarification questions in the CE Reactor Panel community to help refine the interpretation of the data. These questions will focus on how we define equitable access, what makes a clinical education experience high-quality and psychologically safe, and which responsibilities belong to academic programs, clinical sites, and shared stakeholders.
This first review is already helping the CE Commission build a thoughtful, transparent process for using Reactor Panel feedback to inform Commission discussion, future resources, and broader clinical education conversations. We look forward to keeping you informed with more regular updates.