Blog Article: Interprofessional Education and Collaboration around Stockholm: A Study Trip Report

Interprofessional Education and Collaboration around Stockholm: A Study Trip Report

Heike Penner & Rita Hofheinz

Department of Staff Development, University Hospital Munich, Germany

E-mail: Heike.Penner@med.uni-muenchen.de

Introduction

As a result of demographic changes in Germany, the growing proportion of elderly people with chronic, multiple diseases is making increasingly complex demands on health care professionals. A trend analysis at the University Hospital of Munich (Klinikum der Universität München, KUM) has shown that, in recent years, the proportion of patients 65 years or older has risen, especially in intensive care. The growing number of cases with a significant reduction in the average length of stay and the increase in complex treatment and care needs (Bartholomeyczik 2007) makes it necessary to reallocate tasks as well as rethink the cooperation between health professionals in acute patient care (Kuhlmey 2011; Renz et al. 2014).

To meet these new challenges, it takes trusting collaboration within the therapeutic team (Reeves et al. 2012; Renz et al. 2014). However, professional practice and public health care assessments show that the structural conditions and the professional skills of health professionals in Germany are not promoting interprofessional cooperation (World Health Organization [WHO] 2010; Sieger et al. 2010). Doctors and nurses, the main health care professionals treating patients in the hospital, aiming to prevent errors and improve patient care (common team goal), often have difficulty working in teams: nurses sometimes blame doctors for communication deficiencies while physicians want their workload to be acknowledged by other health care professions (Hibbeler 2011). Communication problems within the health care team in turn may lead to poor patient outcome (Sachverständigenrat für Gesundheit 2007; Okuyama et al. 2011; Boev & Yinglin 2015).

From 1999 to 2002, a pilot project entitled Interprofessional Communication in the Hospital was initiated and implemented by the Federal Chamber of Physicians and the German Council of Nursing. It involved doctors, nurses and patients who focused on their communication and collaboration style(s), exploring different hospital tasks, such as patient admission and discharge and ward rounds. The results of the project showed major communication and collaboration deficiencies and a clear need for improving team cooperation (Lecher et al. 2002). In 2007, the Expert Council on Health Care also referred to these problems, noting that the current division of tasks and lack of cooperation between the health professions is not suited to meeting the demographic, structural and innovative demands (Sachverständigenrat für Gesundheit 2007).

SiHaKo Project: An Overview

In 2015, the project, Strengthening Interprofessional Collaboration through Shared Learning Seminars (Stärkung der interprofessionellen Handlungskompetenz, SiHaKo), was launched by the authors with financial support from the Robert Bosch Foundation. This project is directed at medical residents and nurses participating in the post-graduate course in intensive care. Residents and nurses examine, discuss and reflect on the treatment strategy of chronically ill patients with multiple illnesses. The overall objective of the project is to improve collaborative practice and quality of care.

The project includes 68 education units, divided into an orientation and development phase and consisting of, among others, communication seminars, demand-driven theoretical classes, and simulated interprofessional case discussions. The main focus of the seminars is on team communication and patient safety. By learning how to use various interprofessional communication tools (e.g. SBAR) and quality tools (e.g. CAM-ICU) during simulated interprofessional case discussions, the participants develop an awareness of their respective perspectives, their similarities and differences. The simulated interprofessional case discussions are held in a “protected classroom” environment where the students learn about others’roles, learn to solve problems together and thus overcome their limitations and fears within an interprofessional team. The objectives of the simulations allow students to practice and demonstrate team-based skills including communication, mutual support, leadership and “knowledge circulation” which aims to make all participants (nurses/doctors/supervisors) equal partners (DeJong 2012). Over the course of the project, an interprofessional group of lecturers/supervisors is available for all students for professional support and dialogue. The intensive project experience aims to facilitate trust and create a team that continuously reflects on and optimises its actions and communication processes and is able to design its workflows effectively and efficiently.

Study Trip to Stockholm (Sweden)

During the project planning phase, the authors searched for interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional practice (IPP) programmes in health care, both nationally and internationally. In Stockholm, we found a project that we thought could serve as an example for the SiHaKo project. Active networking between the education departments in Munich and Stockholm began in 2014. As a result, a speaker from Stockholm was invited to Munich to give a presentation on IPE at the 19th Munich Intensive Care Day in March 2015. Our study trip to Stockholm took place in October 2016. We planned the trip in cooperation with one supervisor of the IPE Södersjukhuset Utbildningscenter and one supervisor of the IPEICU at Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm. A representative of the Robert Bosch Foundation joined us on our study trip. We visited six different IPE locations in and around Stockholm, which are connected to each other through the Södersjukhuset Utbildningscenter.

Days 1 to 3. We began our tour at the Education Centre of the Stockholm South General Hospital (Södersjukhuset). Here, we were introduced to the Utbildningscenter, receiving information about the history and concept of IPE and IPP in Sweden and the larger Stockholm area.  

During our stay in Stockholm, we were able to observe the employment of the SBAR communication tool with different training teams on different interprofessional training wards. We were given the information that all health care professionals involved in the IPE training (students/supervisors/facilitators) were taught the SBAR concept. According to the IPE learning objectives of the Karolinska Institutet and depending on the level of (interprofessional) education (undergraduate/postgraduate courses), we noted differences in supervising styles: If undergraduate students required professional assistance, supervisors tended to be pro-active, while for students in the postgraduate education programme supervisors were waiting patiently in the background until the students asked for their assistance. On the interprofessional training ward, supervisors (doctors/nurses with pedagogical training) and interprofessional students form a team within each shift’s health care team, meeting for reflection at midday. Clinical assessments of patients take place at the patient’s bedside. The student teams perform the clinical assessment and discuss their findings among themselves before they present them and the therapy goal to the supervisors in the so-called “protected classroom”. After each shift a reflection unit takes place, using, for example, Gibbs’ Model of reflection. This cyclic generic framework is a general approach to reflection and novices may find it too vague requiring further guidance (Thompson & Pascal 2012).

Day 4: To find out how IPE works in an intensive care unit, we visited the Utbildnings Unit ICU at Karolinska Huddinge (IPEICU) because of its similarities to our own project. This IPEICU is open 18 weeks per year for one to two IPE teams per week. We were able to join the IPE teams for one shift on 6 October 2016. Each team is responsible for the care of one patient and coordinates its work with other health care professions. An important part of the IPE training is the joint clinical assessment of the patient followed by the IPE team’s reflection on the therapy plan. The IPE training team consists of students (nurses and residents in ICU training), supervisors (specialist nurses/doctors ICU with pedagogical training) and head supervisors (specialist nurses) facilitating the interprofessional activities and encouraging the participants to remain faithful to the IPE learning concept (Conte et al. 2015).

At the beginning of the shift, we observed the clinical assessment of the patient at the bedside by the IPE student team. The supervisors were quietly standing in the background, observing the students and taking notes. Later, the entire IPE training team retired to the seminar room where the students presented their observations and findings on the patient in accordance with the SBAR concept to reflect collaboratively on the therapy plan. The supervisors used a hermeneutic approach and did not respond directly to the students’ questions, but asked further specific questions that prompted the students to reflect on and, if necessary, rethink their decisions (V= Vorverständnis, or prior understanding, T= text or context understanding; V¹= enlarged understanding, T¹= enlarged context understanding, etc.).

This approach gave the students the space and time to think about and discuss the therapy plan, giving them a feeling of ownership. The learners had enough time to present and re-evaluate their own professional perspectives. In the seminar room, students found a stress-free and safe atmosphere where they could learn from each other in order to arrive at a collaborative therapy decision.  Conte et al. (2015) found that students in the IPE programme in Stockholm indicated that being provided this space and time was a major motivating factor for them. If health care students, from the beginning, are (made) aware of their own professional roles and the roles and perspectives of other health care groups, they may find it much easier to contribute to and focus on collaboration between health care professionals. However, interprofessional communication and collaboration in health care does not happen on its own, it should be offered early and practiced as a lifelong process. The need for life-long learning in IPE is also shown by the WHO (2010).

Discussion

We were able to experience and observe IPE in several training centres in the Stockholm area. In all centres, we met highly committed and enthusiastic Swedish colleagues who welcomed us warmly and work hard to promote an interprofessional spirit in health care. It takes people like them to bring the idea of IPE to (practice) life. Without their hard work and the government’s decision to include IPE in the curricula, the journey would not have been this successful. However, it has taken the Swedish health care system more than twenty years to come this far.

While we can learn a lot from the Swedish model, it will be necessary to adapt it to the German context. Our project is one of a few IPE projects in Germany. The health care system is undergoing constant reforms, and many projects have never gone beyond pilot project level. The Swedish IPE model, however, gives us hope that our vision will become a reality. How to design healthcare education as to meet the needs of the future remains a crucial question. Whether IPE and teamwork are one answer to this question will have to be the subject of further studies.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Rene Ballnus, Helen Conte, Sara Fouraux, Anna Magdsjö, Erika Thorwaldsdotter, Linda Arundson, Eva Barkestad, Anders Nilsson and other Swedish colleagues for their warm welcomes and insights into their professional worlds.

References

Bartholomeyczik, S. (2007): Kurze Verweildauer im Krankenhaus – die Rolle der Pflegenden. Pflege & Gesellschaft; 2:135–149.

Boev, C. & Yinglin, X. (2015): Nurse-Physician Collaboration and Hospital Acquired Infections in Critical Care. Critical Care Nurse; 35:66-72.

Conte, H., Jirwe, M., Scheja, M. & Helmqvist, H. (2015): Get it together: Issues that facilitate collaboration in teams of learners in intensive care. Medical Teacher; 38:491-497.

DeJong, A. (2012). Veränderungen zum Alltag werden lassen – Stabilisierung von Erneuerungen; Universität Witten/Herdecke, Department für Pflegewissenschaft. Available at: http://www.g-plus.org/sites/default/files/deJong_Praesentation_Symposium.pdf

Kuhlmey, A. (2011): Die Idee des Memorandums – Kooperation der Gesundheitsberufe – Einleitung, in: Memorandum Kooperation der Gesundheitsberufe – Qualität und Sicherstellung der zukünftigen Gesundheitsversorgung, Robert Bosch Stiftung. Available at: http://www.bosch-stiftung.de/content/language1/downloads/Memorandum_Kooperation_der_Gesundheitsberufe.pdf

Lecher S., Klapper B., Schaeffer D. & Koch U. (2002): Endbericht zum Modellprojekt Interprofessionelle Kommunikation im Krankenhaus. Available at:http://bundesaerztekammer.de/downloads/EndberichtInterKiK.pdf

Okuyama, A., Martowirono, K. & Bijnen, B. (2011). Assessing the patient safety competencies of healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety; doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000148.

Reeves, S., Tassone, M., Parker, K., Wagner, SJ., Simmons, B.(2012): Interprofessional education: An overview of key developments in the past three decades. Work; 41:233–245.

Renz, P., Luntz, J., Mollenhauer, A. & Doll, N. (2014):Teamkompetenztraining am Universitätsklinikum Tübingen – Eine neue Form der Personalentwicklung, in R. Tewes and A. Stockinger (eds.), Personalentwicklung in Pflege- und Gesundheitseinrichtungen. Berlin and Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

Sachverständigenrat für Gesundheit (2007): Begutachtung der Entwicklung im Gesundheitswesen: Kooperation und Verantwortung: Voraussetzungen einer zielorientierten Gesundheitsversorgung, Kurzfassung. Available at:http://www.svr-gesundheit.de/fileadmin/user_ upload/Gutachten /2007/ Kurzfassung_2007.pdf

Sieger, M., Ertl-Schmuck, R. & Bögemann-Großheim, E. (2010): Interprofessionelles Lernen als Voraussetzung für interprofessionelles Handeln – am Beispiel eines interprofessionell angelegten Bildungs- und Entwicklungsprojektes für Gesundheitsberufe. Pflege & Gesellschaft; 15:197-216.

Thompson, N. & Pascal, J. (2012): Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives - Developing critically reflective practice, Reflective Practice; 13:311–325.

World Health Organization (WHO) (2010): Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. Available at: http://www.who.int/hrh/nursing_midwifery/en/

Book Review: Interprofessional Teamwork in Health and Social Care: Key Tensions and Future Possibilities.



Interprofessional Teamwork in Health and Social Care: Key Tensions and Future Possibilities. In, The Power of Distributed Perspectives (2016)
Günter Abel & Martina Plümacher (Editors)Walter De Gruyter Inc, 2016, 364 pages, hardcover, $140 USD, ISBN-10: 3110482649 ISBN-13: 978-3110482645

This recent volume, edited by Günter Abel and Martina Plümacher, compiles sixteen articles (four of which are written in German) that explore the dynamics of change within institutions. Topics largely centre on the interplay between individual and institutional perspectives, challenges with communication and cooperation between people and institutions, and creative solutions for targeting such challenges. The volume is organized into five sections: structures, interplays, organization, dynamics, and conflicts.

   A chapter of interest to readers, written by Scott Reeves and Ruth Harris, is placed within the organization section. Here, the authors present a review of the literature on teamwork between various health and social professions and link these empirical findings to theory. Noting the global rise in interdisciplinary approaches to patient care, the authors attempt to clarify the complex dynamics of interprofessional teamwork and offer suggestions for practice. As they account for both social and contextual dynamics, as well as build upon previous theories with their own contributions, this chapter serves its purpose well.
   Beginning with an explanation of foundational principles underlying the interprofessional teamwork literature, Reeves and Harris highlight the key aims of the research. These include the importance of diverse skills and knowledge, sharing information to promote organized care, continuity of care, communication, collaborative resource planning, and effective coordination of service provision. The authors summarize the literature’s suggestions for achieving these aims and then link them to relevant theories, including those devised by the authors themselves as well as by other contributors.
   Next, the authors discuss recent developments in the practice and study of interprofessional teamwork. They thematically organize this section in terms of quality and safety, patient centred care, chronic care, rising costs, education and training, and media coverage. They follow this discussion by noting the challenges to this approach, touching on issues at both the patient and systems level. After offering potential solutions to meet those challenges, the authors culminate their review with an empirical case example that draws from previous studies. In doing so, they help the reader to translate findings and theory into practical application.
   This chapter is comprehensive yet succinct. Cited sources are both older and newer, ensuring a balanced review of seminal ideas with recent developments, and the inclusion grey literature adds to the array of information. At the same time, the authors do not overwhelm the reader with too much information, and the chapter’s breadth and depth is appropriate for an edited collection. In the end, Reeves and Harris provide an organized review of original research, describe these findings within a theoretical framework, and then apply their discussion to a “real-world” context. The reader is left with a clear summary of the key issues, dynamics, and developments of interprofessional teamwork. Those working in this type of setting, whether in research, management, or on the frontline, will find this chapter to be a useful resource and guide to further exploration.
   Overall, an interesting collection of chapters which provide a rich exploration of communication, cooperation and change issues from the perspectives of both individuals and institutions.
  Reviewed by
  Rosita Sabzevari

Announcement: Journal of Interprofessional Care Baldwin Award Winner

Journal of Interprofessional Care Baldwin Award Winner


Introduction
The Baldwin Award is in recognition of DeWitt ‘Bud’ Baldwin Jr.’s lifelong and distinguished contribution to interprofessional care. It was first awarded in 2009 for the best article of the 2008 volume of the Journal of Interprofessional Care. Each year since, a panel of judges recruited from the Journal’s editorial board assesses all the original articles published in a single volume and decides upon the winner based upon five key criteria for quality. Below, we detail the process and outcome of the most recent winner of the Baldwin Award - Volume 29.


The adjudication process
The judging panel consisted of three Journal editorial board members: Joanne Goldman (associate editor), John Toner (advisory panel member) and Scott Reeves (editor-in-chief). In judging the quality of work published in the Journal we used established criteria to select the winners. Each article was judged on the following:


-How it adds significantly to the evidence base informing interprofessional education/practice worldwide
-Its potential to have a significant impact on theory informing interprofessional education/practice
-Its potential to have a significant impact on research design in interprofessional education/practice
-Its clarity and cogency (i.e. written well, clearly argued)
-How it shows innovation in the field of interprofessional education/practice.


Only articles (not commentaries, IPEP guides, short reports, editorials) were considered for the Baldwin Award. Articles authored or co-authored by any of the judges were removed from consideration. Articles are scored on a scale from 1 to 10 on each criterion listed above. The six Journal issues that made up Volume 29 were divided equally among the judges so we each individually assess around 20 articles. However, one of us (SR) read all the articles to get an overall sense of quality and ensure parity across scores. Results from the initial assessment were collated and shared between the judges. We took the top two articles from each judge to the next round where we re-assessed each. Following discussion of these papers we arrived at our results.


The Baldwin Award winner
We came to a unanimous decision that the winners of this year Baldwin Award are the authors of the following series of papers:


Sarah Sims, Gillian Hewitt & Ruth Harris, “Evidence of collaboration, pooling of resources, learning and role blurring in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2014.939745


Gillian Hewitt, Sarah Sims & Ruth Harris, “Evidence of communication, influence and behavioural norms in interprofessional teams: a realist synthesis” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2014.941458


Sarah Sims, Gillian Hewitt & Ruth Harris, “Evidence of a shared purpose, critical reflection, innovation and leadership in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2014.941459


While this decision is unusual, as we have only ever presented this award to the authors of a single paper, the judges felt that the articles, considered together, provide key insights for the interprofessional field. The series actually spans four papers (the first was published in volume 28)
that collectively report findings from the first realist synthesis of interprofessional teamwork. The series collectively provides important conceptual, empirical and theoretical insights into key contextual factors, mechanisms and outcomes related to the functioning of interprofessional teams.


Runners Up
We want to also congratulate the two runner up papers which the judging panel felt were very strong contributions to the Journal:


Sirpa Saario, Kirsi Juhila & Suvi Raitakari, “Boundary work in inter-agency and interprofessional client transitions” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2015.1040490


This paper offers a thoughtful analysis of boundary work in inter-agency working using the social science theories of Thomas Gieryn and Andrew Abbott.


Daniel G. Dominguez, David S. Fike, Eric J. MacLaughlin & Joseph A. Zorek, “A comparison of the validity of two instruments assessing health professional student perceptions of interprofessional education and practice” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2014.947360


This paper which systematically compares the use of two interprofessional scales (Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams, Student Perceptions of Interprofessional Clinical Education) offers a useful contribution to the statistical literature.


Honourable Mentions
In addition, it was agreed that honourable mentions should go to the following two papers:


Krist Thomson, Sue Outram, Conor Gilligan & Tracy Levett-Jones, “Interprofessional experiences of recent healthcare graduates: A social psychology perspective on the barriers to effective communication, teamwork, and patient-centred care” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2015.1040873


This paper offers a useful empirical insight of professional identity development using the lenses of social identity and realistic conflict theories.


Simon Kitto, Stuart Duncan Marshall, Sarah E. McMillan, Bill Shearer, Michael Buist, Rachel Grant, Monica Finnigan & Stuart Wilson, “Rapid response systems and collective (in)competence: An exploratory analysis of intraprofessional and interprofessional activation factors” http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/13561820.2014.984021


This paper provides a helpful analysis of rapid response systems using sociological theory, including socio-cultural approach developed Charles Bosk and medical dominance theory developed by Elliot Freidson.


Congratulations to all the authors whose papers have contributed to improving the scholarship of the interprofessional field. These represent the seven best papers of over 70 published in volume 29 of the Journal of Interprofessional Care.


Brief reflections
While it was agreed amongst the judges that the standard and quality of articles published in the Journal continues to improve, it was noted that there were a few areas which authors should pay attention to in constructing and presenting their interprofessional work:


-As we noted last year, there was relatively limited engagement with theory in the papers we considered this year. Once again, it was agreed that work could be improved if authors engaged more with the theoretical literature to develop their study and/or employ theories to explore/explain the nature of their empirical data.


-Again, while qualitative papers were generally better with using theory, a number of these papers could have been improved by paying more attention to quality issues (e.g. reflexivity, member checking, use of iteration) to provide a more informed understanding of the trustworthiness/credibility of their work.


- In addition to the standard phrase about securing formal ethical approval, it would be useful for authors to provide further information related to how issues of consent, confidentiality and anonymity were dealt with in their work.


Our involvement in the Baldwin Award was again an insightful process. We would like to congratulate the winning authors, runners-up and authors with honourable mentions on their excellent articles. We would also like to acknowledge all authors who publish their work in the Journal of Interprofessional Care for continuing to make the Journal such a vibrant and important medium of exchange and innovation in our field.


Scott Reeves, Joanne Goldman & John Toner
Baldwin Award Judges, Journal of Interprofessional Care

Book Review: Assessing Competence in Professional Performance across Disciplines and Professions

Book Review: Assessing Competence in Professional Performance across Disciplines and Professions With a foreword by Lee S. Shulman

Innovation and Change in Professional Education (13th Edition)
Paul F. Wimmers & Marcia Mentkowski. Switzerland: Springer, 2016
488 pages
ISBN 978-3-319-30062-7


This 13th volume, Assessing Competence in Professional Performance across Disciplines and Professions is part of a series dedicated to introducing innovation and discussing issues in professional programs. Each book focuses on a different theme with the assessment of competence in professional education is the focus of this edition.

The book opens with a foreword by Lee S. Shulman then presents twenty-one chapters by various authors. The content of each chapter is similarly organized with headings and subheadings. Each chapter begins with an Abstract, followed by a box titled Takeaway which highlights the main ideas of the chapter. The chapter concludes with References preceded by a box titled Issues/Questions for Reflection which contains thought-provoking considerations. The first and last chapters are introductory and concluding chapters by the editors. The chapters’ in-between each focus on a subject in more depth. Some chapters are literature reviews while others present case studies and empirical research, such as questionnaires.

The grouping of similar themed chapters provides structure. The first three chapters introduce performance assessment. Chapters four through eleven present issues supported by research on a particular discipline. Chapter eight is the exception, which discusses the capability of undergraduate students’ across disciplines to transfer learned knowledge and skills across courses and time. Chapter four and six discusses the reliability, validity, and authenticity of assessments to real world applicability in medical programs. Chapter five focuses on the importance of professional competence-based assessment in engineering programs. Chapter seven focuses on the inclusion of performance assessment in law programs. Chapter nine addresses the importance of feedback and consistence rubrics in nursing programs. Chapter ten and eleven focus on the assessment of critical thinking in health care professionals. Chapters twelve through fifteen address issues in teamwork from effective assessment to the psychometrics to a literature review and research into what comprises a collaboration in healthcare professionals. Chapter sixteen and seventeen focuses on skill development of faculty, for example basic concepts of student assessment and leadership training and assessment. Chapter eighteen through twenty present various issues. Chapter eighteen discusses whether programs in the medical field should offer training in being humane. Chapter nineteen compares and contrasts assessment in time-based programs verses competency-based programs.

Chapter twenty deliberates the development and implementation of the Uniform Bar Examination. In the last chapter, Paul Wimmers and Marcia Mentkowski tie together the main themes to discuss the assessment required to prepare graduates of professional programs successfully enter the work force.
This book is of interest to the faculty of undergraduate and graduate professional programs across many disciplines. In particular, chapter recommendations that highlight additions and changes in the curriculum may be of importance to faculty and education coordinators. In addition, case studies and results of research focus on medical, law, engineering, and nursing programs. Faculty of these programs may find the topics discussed most relevant and applicable, although the concepts discussed may generalize to multiple disciplines.

Review by: Anureet Gill, Graduate Student, Concordia University of Edmonton

Summary: Crucial Conversations: An interprofessional learning opportunity for senior healthcare students

Crucial Conversations: An interprofessional learning opportunity for senior healthcare students

             Clinical errors due to human mistakes are estimated to result in 400,000 preventable deaths per year. Strategies to improve patient safety often rely on healthcare workers’ ability to speak up with concerns. This becomes difficult during critical decision-making as a result of conflicting opinions and power differentials, themes underrepresented in many interprofessional initiatives.
These elements are prominent in the Crucial Conversations training course, which is offered as an interprofessional initiative at the University of Manitoba.

             Delisle, Grymonpre, Whitley, & Wirtzfeld (2016) sought to evaluate this initiative as an interprofessional learning (IPL) opportunity for pre-licensure senior healthcare students, as a way to foster interprofessional collaboration, and as a method of empowering students to vocalise their concerns. The attributes of this IPL opportunity were evaluated using the Points for Interprofessional Education Score (PIPES). The University of the West of England Interprofessional Questionnaire was administered before and after the course to assess changes in attitudes towards IPL, relationships, interactions, and teamwork.

             Crucial Conversations strongly attained the principles of interprofessional education on the PIPES instrument. A total of 38 volunteers completed the 16 hours of training: 15 (39%) medical rehabilitation, 10 (26%) medicine, 7 (18%) pharmacy, 5 (13%) nursing, and 1 (2%) dentistry. Baseline attitude scores were positive for three of the four subscales, all of which improved post-intervention. Interprofessional interactions remained negative possibly due to the lack of IPL opportunities along the learning continuum, the hidden curriculum, as well as the stereotyping and hierarchical structures in today’s healthcare environment preventing students from maximising the techniques learned by use of this interprofessional initiative.

KEYWORDS: Communication, interprofessional education, pre-qualifying/pre-licensure, quantitative method


For more: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13561820.2016.1215971

Summary: Interprofessional education in maternity services: Is there evidence to support policy?

Interprofessional education in maternity services: Is there evidence to support policy?

Nigel Davies, Simon Fletcher & Scott Reeves

Against a backdrop of poor maternity and obstetric care, identified in the Morecambe Bay Inquiry, the UK government has recently called for improvements and heralded investment in training. Given the complex mix of professionals working closely together in maternity services addressing the lack of joined up continuing professional development (CPD) is necessary. This led us to ask whether there is evidence of IPE in maternity services. As part of a wider systematic review of IPE, we searched for studies related to CPD in maternity services between May 2005 and June 2014. A total of 206 articles were identified with 24 articles included after initial screening. Further review revealed only eight articles related to maternity care, none of which met the inclusion criteria for the main systematic review. The main reasons for non-inclusion included weak evaluation, a focus on undergraduate IPE, and articles referring to paediatric/neonatal care only. Fewer articles were found than anticipated given the number of different professions working together in maternity services. This gap suggests further investigation is warranted.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27705011

Summary: Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide No. 8: Team-based interprofessional practice placements

Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide No. 8: Team-based interprofessional practice placements

Margo L. Brewer & Hugh Barr

Whilst interest in interprofessional learning (IPL) in practice contexts has grown in recent years, the complexities involved have led many universities to rely on IPL in the classroom, online, and/or simulated contexts. Curtin University’s Faculty of Health Sciences has successfully implemented a multi-award winning, large-scale Interprofessional Practice Programme. This programme, which began with five small pilots in 2009, provides team-based interprofessional practice placements for over 550 students from nine professions per annum. Drawing on both the literature and Curtin University’s experience, this Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide aims to assist university and practice-based educators to “weigh the case” for introducing team-based interprofessional placements. The key lessons learned at Curtin University are identified to offer guidance to others towards establishing a similar programme for students during their prequalifying courses in health, social care, and related fields.

Keywords: Interprofessional education, interprofessional learning, practice-based learning, team-based placements


Volume 30, 2016 - Issue 6: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820.2016.1220930?needAccess=true&journalCode=ijic20