Arenson and colleagues recently conducted a mixed-methods approach to assessing attitudes towards the health mentors program (HMP) and towards interprofessional practice. The health mentors program (HMP) is a required, longitudinal, interprofessional curriculum for all matriculating students from medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, physical therapy, pharmacy, and couple and family therapy. A mixed-methods approach has been employed since program inception, evaluating 2911 students enrolled in HMP from 2007 to 2013. Program impact on 577 students enrolled from 2009–2011 is reported. Two interprofessional scales were employed to measure attitudes toward IPE and attitudes toward interprofessional practice. Focus groups and reflection papers provide qualitative data. Students enter professional training with very positive attitudes toward IPE, which are maintained over 2 years. Students demonstrated significantly improved attitudes toward team care, which were not different across programs. Qualitative data suggested limited tolerance for logistic challenges posed by IPE, but strongly support that students achieved the major program goals of understanding the roles of colleagues and understanding the perspective of patients. Ongoing longitudinal evaluation will further elucidate the impact on future practice and patient outcomes.
Read More: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2014.944257
Announcement
We are looking for books and reports on all topics related to interprofessional education and collaboration to review on the Blog. If you know of a recently published (hard copy/online) book/report, or have an interest in producing a book/report review please email: jic.editorialoffice@gmail.com
Monday, August 4, 2014
Monday, July 21, 2014
Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide No. 1 - Focus on Faculty Development
Introducing our new Interprofessional Education and Practice (IPEP) Guides - A series of papers which aim to provide practical advice and support for colleagues engaged in designing, developing, assessing and evaluating interprofessional education and practice.
The first guide by Les Hall and Brenda Zierler is entitled 'Developing faculty to effectively facilitate interprofessional education'. The guide draws on the authors' experience of develoing and implementing a faculty development program to prepare
leaders for interprofessional education. Using a variety of techniques, including didactic teaching,
small group exercises, immersion participation in interprofessional
education, local implementation of new IPE projects, and peer learning,
the program positioned each site to successfully introduce an
interprofessional innovation. Participating faculty confirmed the value
of the program, and suggested that more widespread similar efforts were
worthwhile.
Based on this work, the first IPEP guide identifies a range of key lessons learned from this
initiative, including:
- Peer learning arising from a faculty development community
- Adaptation of curricula to fit local context
- Experiential learning
- Ongoing coaching/mentoring
Each lesson is described and discussed. Collectively, these lessons provide the key elements needed for the delivery of effective interprofessional faculty development.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Narrative in interprofessional education and practice: implications for professional identity, provider–patient communication and teamwork
In a new paper published by Philip Clark in the Journal of Interprofessional Care, he argues that health
and social care professionals are increasingly using narrative approaches to
focus on the patient and to communicate with each other. Both effective
interprofessional education (IPE) and practice (IPP) require recognizing
the various values and voices of different professions, how they relate
to the patient’s life story, and how they interact with each other at
the level of the healthcare team. Clark's article analyzes and integrates
the literature on narrative to explore: self-narrative as an expression
of one’s professional identity; the co-creation of the patient’s
narrative by the professional and the patient; and the interprofessional
multi-vocal narrative discourse as co-constructed by members of the
healthcare team. Using a narrative approach to thinking about
professional identity, provider–patient communication, and
interprofessional teamwork expands our thinking about both IPE and IPP
by providing new insights into the nature of professional practice based
on relationships to oneself, the patient, and others on the team. How
professionals define themselves, gather and present information from the
patient, and communicate as members of a clinical team all have
important dimensions that can be revealed by a narrative approach.
Implications and conclusions for the further development of the
narrative approach in IPE and IPP are offered.
For further information see: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2013.853652
Friday, October 18, 2013
The social context of career choice among millennial nurses: implications for interprofessional practice
Health human resource and workforce planning is a global
priority. Given the critical nursing shortage, and the fact that nurses
are the largest group of healthcare providers, health workforce planning
must focus on strategies to enhance both recruitment and retention of
nurses. Understanding early socialization to career choice can provide
insight into professional perceptions and expectations that have
implications for recruitment, retention and interprofessional
collaboration.
In a newly published paper by Sheri Price and colleagues, these authors used Polkinghorne’s theory of narrative emplotment to understand the career
choice experiences of 12 millennial nurses (born between 1980 and 2000)
in Eastern Canada.
Participants were interviewed twice, face-to-face, 4
to 6 weeks apart prior to commencing their nursing program. The narratives present career choice as a complex consideration of
social positioning. The findings provide insight into how nursing is
perceived to be positioned in relation to medicine and how the
participants struggled to locate themselves within this social
hierarchy.
The authors state that the implications of this research highlight the need to ensure
that recruitment messaging and organizational policies promote
interprofessional collaboration from the onset of choosing a career in the health professions. Early professional socialization strategies
during recruitment and education can enhance future collaboration
between the health professions.
Read More at: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2013.816660
Read More at: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2013.816660
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Intersections between interprofessional practice, cultural competency and primary healthcare
The concepts of interprofessional collaborative practice
(IPCP), cultural competency and primary healthcare (PHC) appear to be
linked in theory and practice. A recently published JIC paper (Oelke et al 2013) provides
arguments explicating the potential linkages between IPCP and cultural
competency. The authors argue that cultural competency is an important component
of IPCP both for relationships with patients and/or communities in which
providers work and between team members.
The authors note that organizational structures also
play an important role in facilitating IPCP and cultural competency.
The integration of both IPCP and cultural competency has the potential
to enhance positive health outcomes. Furthermore, the authors argue IPCP and
cultural competency have important implications for PHC service design,
given interprofessional teams are a key component of PHC systems.
Linking these concepts in providing PHC services can be essential for
impacting outcomes at all levels of primary healthcare, including
patient, provider and systems.
To read more about these issues go to: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2013.785502
To read more about these issues go to: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2013.785502
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Rise and Rise of Interprofessional Competence
In the past few years, we have seen a continued growth in the
use of competency frameworks for the traditional health and social care
professions (e.g. nursing, medicine) as well as the emerging professions
such as physician assistants.
In this editorial, I attempt to explore the
continued rise of competence, with a focus on the use of competency
frameworks in the interprofessional field. In doing this, I initially
outline the growth of interprofessional competency frameworks and
discuss some of the benefits they offer before examining their current
shortcomings. The overall aim of this editorial is to argue that, while
our efforts in identifying and synthesizing interprofessional competence
have taken some important steps forward in defining the key attitudes,
knowledge, skills and behaviors for effective interprofessional
practice, collectively there are still areas in which we need to improve
to ensure the interprofessional competency frameworks we produce are
done so in as robust a fashion as possible.
In the past 5 years or so, especially in North America, we
have witnessed a growth in the number of interprofessional competency
frameworks both from national organizations.
We have also seen a number of publications that discuss and explore how
competences can contribute to the development of more effective
interprofessional practitioners. As
I previously argued, the use of competences and competency frameworks
has a wide appeal as they help provide consistent standards of
professional and interprofessional practice, help validate areas of
health care work which are regarded as important (e.g. patient-centered
care), can provide observable indicators of performance and also offer
an indication of the complex interplay between knowledge, skills and
behaviors.
When
one reviews the interprofessional frameworks, it is encouraging to note
that they have a degree of consistency with the core domains of
competence they identify. In
addition, from the perspective of interprofessional education in the
USA, it appears that the focus on interprofessional competence has
engaged a number of policy-makers and funders into re-investing into the
field. As noted above, one of the strengths of the competency movement,
which arguably appeals to policy-makers and funders, is the use of
competency statements that can potentially provide observable indicators
of collaborative performance across an array of clinical contexts.
Nevertheless, the interprofessional competency frameworks
produced so far contain two main issues which need some further thought.
The first is conceptual. When one reads the various competency
statements within the domains of these frameworks, an extremely popular
focus is on “teams” and “teamwork”. While interprofessional teams are a
very common arrangement in the delivery of health care, they are not the
only division of labour. This almost exclusive focus on teams overlooks
the fact that there are other forms of interprofessional work which
learners also need to have competence in working together effectively
when delivering care.
Recently, with colleagues I published a typology of interprofessional work which classified activities into four forms: teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking (Reeves et al 2010 - Interprofessional Teamwork for Health and Social Care). We differentiated these forms of interprofessional work as follows: teamwork was seen as encompassing a number of elements such as shared team identity, clarity of roles, interdependence between team members, integration of tasks and shared responsibility. In contrast, collaboration was a “looser” form of interprofessional work, as shared identity and integration of individuals were less important, but there were some shared accountability and interdependence between professions. For coordination, while there was some sense of shared identity, integration and interdependence were less important; there was also little shared accountability or clarity of roles, tasks and goals. Lastly, networking was a relationship in which shared team identity, clarity of roles/goals, interdependence and shared responsibility were less essential; networks were therefore seen as virtual, whereby none of the members necessarily needed to meet face to face, as they could communicate online in an asynchronous manner.
The aim of presenting this topology here is to provide a reminder that we have, so far, neglected to incorporate other forms of interprofessional work, which occur across a range of health and social care settings. Teamwork is one form, but we also need to think about developing competency statements that reflect these wider forms of interprofessional work.
The second issue is focused on measurement. At the moment, we are not clear about how to robustly measure (assess) the many different statements which make up the interprofessional competency frameworks. Importantly, each of the competency statements is very complex in its composition. Each statement can combine multi-faceted attributes related to collaborative attitudes, values, knowledge, skills and behaviors – packaged together in a single sentence. However, it is difficult to see how to tease apart each of the embedded attributes and measure them in a rigorous manner.
Efforts to date, which have used self-assessment approaches, only provide a limited form of evidence. We therefore need to embrace other assessment methods, such as observation of performance.
Another measurement difficulty is that the unit of analysis for these interprofessional competency frameworks is focused on the individual learner. Although this focus is appropriate, as assessment of individuals is extremely important, it overlooks any measurement of the shared learning experience. We fail to assess collectively the interprofessional group or team of learners. This oversight is arguably an important limitation, as we are not focusing on a key element of interprofessional education – its shared, collective approach. We therefore need to better understand, through measurement, this dimension.
To read more - go to: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2012.695542
Recently, with colleagues I published a typology of interprofessional work which classified activities into four forms: teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking (Reeves et al 2010 - Interprofessional Teamwork for Health and Social Care). We differentiated these forms of interprofessional work as follows: teamwork was seen as encompassing a number of elements such as shared team identity, clarity of roles, interdependence between team members, integration of tasks and shared responsibility. In contrast, collaboration was a “looser” form of interprofessional work, as shared identity and integration of individuals were less important, but there were some shared accountability and interdependence between professions. For coordination, while there was some sense of shared identity, integration and interdependence were less important; there was also little shared accountability or clarity of roles, tasks and goals. Lastly, networking was a relationship in which shared team identity, clarity of roles/goals, interdependence and shared responsibility were less essential; networks were therefore seen as virtual, whereby none of the members necessarily needed to meet face to face, as they could communicate online in an asynchronous manner.
The aim of presenting this topology here is to provide a reminder that we have, so far, neglected to incorporate other forms of interprofessional work, which occur across a range of health and social care settings. Teamwork is one form, but we also need to think about developing competency statements that reflect these wider forms of interprofessional work.
The second issue is focused on measurement. At the moment, we are not clear about how to robustly measure (assess) the many different statements which make up the interprofessional competency frameworks. Importantly, each of the competency statements is very complex in its composition. Each statement can combine multi-faceted attributes related to collaborative attitudes, values, knowledge, skills and behaviors – packaged together in a single sentence. However, it is difficult to see how to tease apart each of the embedded attributes and measure them in a rigorous manner.
Efforts to date, which have used self-assessment approaches, only provide a limited form of evidence. We therefore need to embrace other assessment methods, such as observation of performance.
Another measurement difficulty is that the unit of analysis for these interprofessional competency frameworks is focused on the individual learner. Although this focus is appropriate, as assessment of individuals is extremely important, it overlooks any measurement of the shared learning experience. We fail to assess collectively the interprofessional group or team of learners. This oversight is arguably an important limitation, as we are not focusing on a key element of interprofessional education – its shared, collective approach. We therefore need to better understand, through measurement, this dimension.
Finally, we have little evaluation data,
to date, which provide an insight into whether any of these
interprofessional frameworks are being implemented. We have no empirical
evidence into how effective (or not) they are in capturing the essence
of effective interprofessional collaboration. This is another area where
we need data to help us understand the broader issues linked the use of
interprofessional competence and the frameworks which aim to synthesize
its core elements.
To read more - go to: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2012.695542
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Physician Assistants in Interprofessional Teams - A Study
Ensuring that interprofessional health care teams have a mix of skilled professionals to meet patient need, safely and effectively. Like a number of other countries, the UK have been exploring the contribution physician assistants (PAs), who are well established in the US, can make to interprofessional teams. In a study recently published in the J Interprof Care investigated the employment of PAs in primary care and their contribution through an electronic, self report, survey. Sixteen PAs responded, who were working in a variety of types of general practice teams. A range of activities were reported but the greatest proportion of their time was described as seeing patients in booked surgery appointments for same day/urgent appointments. The scope of the survey was limited and questions remain as to patient and professional responses to a new professional group within an interprofessional primary care context.
For more information see: http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561820.2012.686538
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)