Scholarlink

Introduction <p>Digital transformation is reshaping healthcare education, requiring educators to demonstrate competence in digital teaching, patient care, and communication. Existing frameworks such as DigCompEdu, DigHealthCom, and UNESCO’s AI Competency Framework offer guidance, yet their suitability for clinical educators is not well established. This study explored how clinical educators integrate digital tools in teaching and practice, and examined strengths and gaps in their digital competencies through the lens of these frameworks.</p> Methods <p>A qualitative, exploratory study with Semi-structured interviews was conducted, including clinical educators and comparative basic sciences educators from both public and private institutions. Questions informed by the DigCompEdu, DigHealthCom, and UNESCO artificial intelligence (AI) Competency Frameworks for teachers, examined the types of digital resources educators used and their confidence in applying these tools for teaching and learning and patient care. Thematic analysis revealed five major themes, which were mapped to the DigCompEdu, DigHealthCom, and UNESCO AI Competency frameworks, highlighting critical gaps in digital pedagogy, health communication, and AI literacy within clinical education settings.</p> Results <p>Participants expressed varying levels of confidence and competence. Basic sciences educators were more confident in using structured tools such as LMS platforms and interactive apps, while clinicians tended to use WhatsApp, PowerPoint, or emails with limited integration into teaching practices, particularly deficient areas were student assessment and empowerment.</p> Conclusion <p>This study highlights both strengths and gaps in the digital competencies of healthcare educators. While educators showed confidence in communication through mobile platforms, they lacked skills in resource creation, data literacy, student engagement and interaction with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). Basic sciences educators showed greater confidence in structured digital teaching, whereas clinical educators struggled with integrating technology, both into patient-centered contexts and teaching. The study underscores gaps in current digital competence frameworks and we advocate for inclusive, clinically grounded models that recognize and respond to the dual responsibilities of clinician-educators as teachers and caregivers.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Exploring the digital competencies of clinical educators: a framework-based qualitative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月5日

查看全文
  • Sabeen Saad,
  • Saad Ahmed,
  • Muhammad Nasir Ayub Khan,
  • Muhammad Iqbal Khan

摘要

Introduction

Digital transformation is reshaping healthcare education, requiring educators to demonstrate competence in digital teaching, patient care, and communication. Existing frameworks such as DigCompEdu, DigHealthCom, and UNESCO’s AI Competency Framework offer guidance, yet their suitability for clinical educators is not well established. This study explored how clinical educators integrate digital tools in teaching and practice, and examined strengths and gaps in their digital competencies through the lens of these frameworks.

Methods

A qualitative, exploratory study with Semi-structured interviews was conducted, including clinical educators and comparative basic sciences educators from both public and private institutions. Questions informed by the DigCompEdu, DigHealthCom, and UNESCO artificial intelligence (AI) Competency Frameworks for teachers, examined the types of digital resources educators used and their confidence in applying these tools for teaching and learning and patient care. Thematic analysis revealed five major themes, which were mapped to the DigCompEdu, DigHealthCom, and UNESCO AI Competency frameworks, highlighting critical gaps in digital pedagogy, health communication, and AI literacy within clinical education settings.

Results

Participants expressed varying levels of confidence and competence. Basic sciences educators were more confident in using structured tools such as LMS platforms and interactive apps, while clinicians tended to use WhatsApp, PowerPoint, or emails with limited integration into teaching practices, particularly deficient areas were student assessment and empowerment.

Conclusion

This study highlights both strengths and gaps in the digital competencies of healthcare educators. While educators showed confidence in communication through mobile platforms, they lacked skills in resource creation, data literacy, student engagement and interaction with emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI). Basic sciences educators showed greater confidence in structured digital teaching, whereas clinical educators struggled with integrating technology, both into patient-centered contexts and teaching. The study underscores gaps in current digital competence frameworks and we advocate for inclusive, clinically grounded models that recognize and respond to the dual responsibilities of clinician-educators as teachers and caregivers.