http://informahealthcare.com/jic ISSN: 1356-1820 (print), 1469-9567 (electronic) J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 311–316 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.893419

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Selecting an interprofessional education model for a tertiary health care setting Prudy Menard1 and Lara Varpio2 1

Geriatric Medicine Department, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada and 2Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Academy for Innovation in Medical Education, Ottawa, Canada Abstract

Keywords

The World Health Organization describes interprofessional education (IPE) and collaboration as necessary components of all health professionals’ education – in curriculum and in practice. However, no standard framework exists to guide healthcare settings in developing or selecting an IPE model that meets the learning needs of licensed practitioners in practice and that suits the unique needs of their setting. Initially, a broad review of the grey literature (organizational websites, government documents and published books) and healthcare databases was undertaken for existing IPE models. Subsequently, database searches of published papers using Scopus, Scholars Portal and Medline was undertaken. Through this search process five IPE models were identified in the literature. This paper attempts to: briefly outline the five different models of IPE that are presently offered in the literature; and illustrate how a healthcare setting can select the IPE model within their context using Reeves’ seven key trends in developing IPE. In presenting these results, the paper contributes to the interprofessional literature by offering an overview of possible IPE models that can be used to inform the implementation or modification of interprofessional practices in a tertiary healthcare setting.

Continuing education, conceptual model, interprofessional education, work-based learning

Introduction A world crisis identifying the shortage of 4.3 million doctors, midwives, nurses and support workers, calls for a more innovative approach to teaching (Health Canada, 2003; The World Health Report, WHO, 2006; WHO, 2010). The World Health Organization has identified that interprofessional education (IPE) could be the answer to building a more collaborative approach and an overall stronger health care system. However, to accomplish this, IPE needs to become a necessary component in health professionals’ education – both in curriculum and in practice (WHO, 2010). In light of this recommendation, health care institutions are facing challenges in implementing IPE into the practice setting and no standard framework exists to guide healthcare settings in developing or selecting an IPE model that suits their unique needs (Clark, 2006). In this paper, we identify and describe five IPE models currently available in the healthcare research literature. Then we illustrate how Reeves’ (2009) seven key trends in developing continuing IPE can be employed to suggest which model would best fit a tertiary healthcare setting. In this way, we hope to achieve three goals: to briefly outline five different models of IPE that are presently offered in the literature; to illustrate how a healthcare setting (in this paper, the setting is a tertiary care hospital) can select the IPE model that rings true in their context; and to suggest how this selection process can be improved.

Correspondence: Geriatric Medicine Department, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

History Received 10 April 2013 Revised 14 December 2013 Accepted 8 February 2014 Published online 28 March 2014

In this paper, we employ the definition of IPE that is most commonly found in the literature: ‘‘[IPE] occurs when two or more professions learn with, from and about each other in order to improve collaboration and the quality of care’’ (Center for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education, 2002). IPE can be applied to both academic and practice settings. However, as Reeves notes, IPE in the practice setting differs from academia as the latter tries to build collaboration before practice, joining inexperienced students together in a classroom or clinical setting. IPE in a practice setting requires collaborative effort from experienced staff working directly with the patient in diverse clinical environments (2009). Reeves uses the term ‘‘continuing IPE’’ to describe IPE which occurs after a healthcare professional acquires licensure and is practicing in the work place. This paper’s analysis focuses on continuous IPE in the practice setting of a tertiary care hospital. One of IPE’s aims is to foster interprofessional collaboration among healthcare team members. Interprofessional collaboration is commonly defined as instances ‘‘when multiple health workers from different backgrounds provide comprehensive services by working with patients, their families, carers and communities to deliver the highest quality of care across settings’’ (WHO, 2010, p. 13). The IPE challenges faced in tertiary healthcare units are numerous, especially given that the needs and resources available in each context are unique. Yet, there are some commonalities that track across tertiary care contexts. For example, patients’ conditions are complex and thus often require numerous professionals to be involved. As a result, any breakdown in communication across the asynchronous team can lead to poor patient

312

P. Menard & L. Varpio

outcomes such as adverse events or even death (Rice et al., 2010; Thistlethwaite, 2012). Also, with the rise of the elderly population in this setting, management of chronic diseases requires system changes that can support team-based care where each member communicates effectively and is aware of one another’s roles and responsibilities to ensure patient satisfaction and safety (Thistlethwaite, 2012). Other factors that have been shown to interfere with IPE and interprofessional collaboration in the tertiary care setting are lack of role models in teaching and practice, resistance, expenses, inconveniences in scheduling, professional culture limitations with professional education models, power struggles between professions, and professional accreditation requirements (Baldwin, 2007; Pecukonis, Doyle, & Bliss, 2008; Pethybridge, 2004; Skjorshammer, 2001). Professional culture is yet another factor that can impose limitations on continuous IPE in the tertiary care setting. According to Pecukonis et al. (2008) professional culture begins during the education of health professionals and is then transferred into the practice setting. Health professionals are generally educated in silos to enable trainees to acquire an understanding of full competence within their own profession. This structure may result in the development of biases towards other professions because each profession emphasizes the knowledge and skill sets that are unique to their profession. Pecukonis refers to this phenomenon as ‘‘profession-centrism’’ (2008). Such profession-centric education can encourage rivalry over collaboration. One suggestion to improve this problem is to instill interprofessional cultural competencies during a student’s educational years (Percukonis et al., 2008). Another suggestion for improving interprofessional cultural competencies in the practice setting is to incorporate multiple theories when developing IPE that will address social identity, professionalism and stereotyping (Sargeant, 2009). Regardless of barriers, the literature confirms that, with the ever increasing demands of complex healthcare issues, healthcare workers who have the opportunity to participate in interprofessional education will contribute to a stronger healthcare system with superior health outcomes (WHO, 2010). To achieve these benefits, an important question must first be answered: What models exist to guide IPE implementation in a tertiary healthcare setting?

Methods To find the IPE models currently described in the literature, we began our search by performing a scoping review. These searches covered the following four processes: (1) an online search of IPE organizational websites (American Interprofessional Education Collaborative; Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative; Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education; European Interprofessional Education Network); (2) an online search of government or collaborative organization documents (A health service of all the talents: developing the NHS workforce [Department of Health, 2000]; Crossing the quality chasm and Retooling for an aging America [Institute of Medicine, 2001, 2008]; Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice [WHO, 2010]; Romanow Advisory report [Health Canada, 2003]); (3) a review of published books by experts in IPE (Freeth, Hammick, Reeves, Koppel, & Barr, 2005; Reeves, Lewin, Espin, & Zwarenstein, 2010); (4) searches of three electronic databases (Scopus, Scholars Portal and Medline) within the timeframe of 1997–2012. (We chose 1997 as a search start point because the original definition of IPE developed by the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) was issued in that year). The search of electronic databases used the following key terms: [interprofessional

J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 311–316

education, healthcare, OR continuing education], and [model, framework, or theory]. We used the terms ‘‘model’’, ‘‘framework’’ and ‘‘theory’’ in our search since these terms can sometimes be used interchangeably. We wanted to find all the peer-reviewed articles that described a conceptual system (i.e. model, framework or theory) that explained IPE in terms of general principles so that that conceptual system may be used as a lens through which to examine and understand an IPE context (i.e. making it informative beyond a specific instance of IPE). In this paper, we use the term ‘‘model’’ to describe a prescriptive approach to the IPE topic; however, in our literature search, we included the other key terms [i.e. framework and theory] to capture descriptive or predictive approaches that may have been used by other authors to conceptualize IPE activities (Ilott, Gerrish, Laker, & Bray, 2013). These searches generated a list of 426 articles. Manual review of these publications was undertaken to determine which articles met our two inclusion criteria: (1) the paper reports an IPE model or framework; and (2) the paper applies that model or framework to at least one healthcare setting. After review of these abstracts, five articles met these inclusion criteria. In chronological order, they are: competency-based model for interprofessional education (Barr, 1998), Interprofessional education for collaborative patientcentered practice (D’amour & Oandasan, 2005), W(e) Learn (Casimiro, MacDonald, Thompson, & Stodel, 2009), Seamless Care model (Mann et al., 2009), and UBC Model of Interprofessional Education (Charles, Bainbridge, & Gilbert, 2010). We acknowledge that Barr’s work is generally considered a typology; however, it met our inclusion criteria (as described above) and so was included in our analysis.

Results We begin by briefly describing each of the five models that met our search criteria, including their most salient attributes. Competency-based interprofessional education Barr’s (1998) model of competency-based interprofessional education originated from the needs: to situate IPE in every day academic education, to have students simultaneously study their own profession as well as other professions, to have interprofessional courses count towards their professional credits, to obtain support for IPE from administration/employers, to close the gaps that existed in IPE models of the day, and to provide skills to students that would allow for collaboration. This model identifies knowledge, skills and attitude as core competencies (Oandasan & Reeves, 2005). Knowledge not only refers to understanding one’s own profession, but also those of others. Skills refer to the processes of working with others to communicate effectively, to resolve conflicts, to build relationships and to focus on safe patient care. Attitudinal competencies consisted of acceptance, respect and teamwork. Although Barr (1998) does not explicitly state the educational theory that he used to support this model, he does mention the cyclical model of Jones and Joss (1995), which is based on Kolb’s experiential learning, as well as Gibbs and Schon’s reflective practitioner (Barr, 1998). Interprofessional education for collaborative patient-centered practice The second model we identified is D’Amour and Oandasan’s (2005) IPE for collaborative patient-centered practice. This model is comprised of two inter-related systems. The first system is the education system, which includes the learner. The second is the professional system, which includes the patient. The basic tenets of this model are to help the learner develop their competencies

DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.893419

towards safe patient care, to improve educators’ abilities to guide this process, and to empower patients to develop self-care after discharge. This model can be used in academia as well as in practice. This model has made a significant and meaningful contribution to the field, but it should be noted that its development was not overtly informed by an educational theory per se. While this model was deeply informed by empirical and theoretically-informed research, the use of educational theory to found the inter-professionality model is not explicitly described. W(e) Learn Framework The third model is the W(e) Learn Framework (Casimiro, MacDonald, Thompson, & Stodel, 2009). Its intent was to connect online learning and collaborative practice using a blended approach. The blended learning approach is described as a combination of instructional methods with eLearning approaches. Such combinations include, but are not limited to: synchronous and asynchronous learning events; eLearning media; and formal and informal learning activities. It outlines four main components of online IPE: structure (including, for example, learner and context analysis, facilitation strategies, learner assessment, and interactivity), content (including inclusive, authentic, evidencebased, and responsiveness to stakeholders), media (including delivery mode, usability, technology, and eLearning skills) and service (including organization, technical support, accessibility, and responsiveness), as well as considering the learning environment and outcomes. Several learning theories were used to construct this framework: communities of practice/situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), socio-cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978), complexity theory (Plsek & Grenhalgh, 2001), activity theory (Engestrom, Engestrom, & Vahaaho, 1999) and actor network theory (Latour, 2005; Law, 1994). This model can be used in both academic and practice settings. Seamless Care model The Seamless Care model was developed at Dalhousie University (Mann et al., 2009). This experiential IPE model examines the transition of students from the classroom to the clinical practice area. It is based on D’Amour and Oandasan (2005) framework IPE for collaborative patient-centered practice. There are three key elements in the Seamless Care model. They are: the learners’ core competencies towards safe patient care, the educator’s IPE preparedness to act as either an integrative preceptor (i.e. acting as supervising case manager for the patient and the team’s collaborative work) or a professional preceptor (i.e. acting as a profession specific resource person for trainees to bridge), and the patient’s capacity to assume care when they leave the hospital (Mann et al., 2009). The Seamless Care intervention provided a full-day orientation training session to students and faculty prior to clinical placement. This orientation included an introduction to IPE in the clinical setting, scope of practice of various professions, the principles of collaboration, and the roles and responsibilities of students and preceptors in this intervention. There were several learning theories used to develop this model: Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory and ‘‘situated learning/ communities of practice/cultural learning’’ (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003; Wenger, 1998). University of British Columbia model This model of IPE uses three terms to describe the overlap that occurs in IPE education (exposure, immersion and mastery) (Charles et al., 2010). It acknowledges that students have optimum times when IPE learning can occur, and this can be identified by their developmental stage and readiness to learn. When optimum

Selecting an interprofessional education model

313

timing is considered and acted upon, it will result in maximum professional interaction with others, resulting in safe patient care (Charles et al., 2010). In the exposure state, students who are new to IPE are expected to learn in parallel but not directly with other professions. The stage of immersion, senior students learn collaboratively with other professions by participating in team activities. The mastery stage depicts graduate students who are capable of participating in collaborative skills as well as teaching it. Online learning is used to guide many of the activities. Two learning theories were used to guide this model. The first is Valsiner’s cultural and human development theory and the second is Mezirow’s theory of transformational learning (Charles et al., 2010).

Discussion In our review, we did not find a standard framework or guideline that would support our efforts to choose a model that would fit a tertiary healthcare setting. To fill this gap, we turned to Reeves’ seven trends (2009) for developing IPE for continuing education and compared each model against each trend. This framework was selected as it was a review article of a range of continuing IPE-specific theoretical, pedagogical and practical concerns. While other frameworks might also usefully be employed to help tertiary healthcare settings choose an IPE model, we suggest that these seven trends encompass important criteria that should be addressed in any continuing IPE context. In identifying the seven trends, Reeves examined ten articles that focused on the issues related to the design, development, implementation and evaluation process of continuing IPE and extracted the most common ones. The seven trends that were identified as necessary in developing continuous IPE were: conceptual clarity, quality improvement, safety, technology, assessment of learning, faculty development and theory (Reeves, 2009). When deciding which model to implement in a particular tertiary care setting, it may be advisable to not weigh consideration of the seven trends equally. For example, in a setting where budgetary constraints impede the incorporation of eLearning technologies, Reeves’ technology trend will likely be given less weight in that institution’s IPE considerations. For the purposes of this illustrative analysis, we give equal weight to each trend. Of the five IPE models we reviewed, two models were applicable to a clinical setting, one explicitly referred to quality improvement initiatives, all linked competencies to patient safety, three explicitly stated using technology to guide learning, two described learner assessment, three included faculty development in their model, and three described the theories used to guide the model (Table I). The only IPE model that addressed all of Reeves’ seven trends was the W(e) Learn model (Casimiro et al., 2009). Therefore, we chose to analyze the W(e) Learn model against Reeves’s seven trends in order to examine its applicability to a clinical, tertiary healthcare setting. According to Reeves, the conceptual definitions and theory underpinning an IPE model need to be transparent (2009). For example, are the terms explicitly defined in the model or are they blurred (e.g. the distinction between IPE and interprofessional collaboration)? Does the model specify contextual applicability factors such as the setting and the participants? It is important to identify contextual factors because objectives, interventions, and desired outcomes may differ, depending on whether or not the education is targeted towards students or front-line workers, or if it is targeted towards academic or practice settings (Goldman, Zwarenstein, Bhattacharyya, & Reeves, 2009). Having conceptual clarity and theory enables specific care settings to determine the level of applicability of a given model to their context. Not all continuous IPE settings neither are the same, nor are all tertiary

314

P. Menard & L. Varpio

J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 311–316

Table I. IPE Models compared using Reeves’s Seven Trends (2009).

Model

Conceptualclarity/ setting

Quality improvement explicit

Barr, 1998 D’Amour & Oandasan, 2005 Casimiro, et al., 2009 Mann et al., 2009 Charles et al., 2010

Academia Academia practice Academia practice Academia Academia

No No Yes No No

Safety

Technology use explicit

Assessment of learning explicit

Faculty development explicit

Theory used

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

No No Yes No Yes

No No Yes Yes No

No Yes Yes Yes No

Unclear Unclear Yes Yes Yes

care contexts: having a clear description of concepts and underpinning theories provide important information to consider before engaging in the challenge of implementing a model. The W(e) Learn model attaches a definition guide to the model where the definition of each variable is clearly presented. For example, the authors define ‘‘interprofessional practice’’ as one that ‘‘integrates the knowledge and expertise of team members from different healthcare professions. . .to set common goals’’ (Casimiro et al., 2009, p. 1). This applies to the tertiary care setting as the different professions need to set common goals to ensure safe patient outcomes. For example, using a team surgical checklist, which incorporates generating shared patient care goals, has been shown to significantly reduce observed communication failures among surgical team members (Lingard et al., 2008). The W(e) Learn model relies on multiple theories: communities of practice/situated learning, socio-cultural theory, complexity theory, activity theory and actor network theory. Due to the scope and focus of this paper, we limit our analysis to one of these theories as it applies to the tertiary healthcare setting: communities of practice theory. This theory addresses interprofessional cultural competencies by encouraging healthcare professionals to work collaboratively through building social identity and sharing knowledge (Ho et al., 2010). When selecting a model for implementation, continuing IPE educators should consider how other theories such as Lave and Wenger’s (1991) ‘‘communities of practice’’ learning theory might (or might not) be received in their context. The W(e) Learn model examines the IPE needs of diverse adult learners immersed in a multitude of complex problems. It suggests developing pertinent, practical problem solving skills, as well as learning to consider others perspectives and to be able to acquire personal meaning from what they experience (Casimiro et al., 2009). From a social perspective, the model uses communities of practice and situated learning to stress the importance of experiential learning activities that support community building (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). It acknowledges that healthcare teams come with formal and informal knowledge and that individual team members learn how to work together through collaboration to make decisions that can improve patient safety (Casimiro et al., 2009; Sargeant, 2009). Quality improvement and patient safety trends are other considerations in continuing IPE (Reeves, 2009). Due to patient complexity, when care provided by healthcare teams is not collaborative, coordinated and communicated effectively, the patient’s overall quality of life suffers and may result in increased patient mortality rates, longer periods of recovery and the likelihood of medical error and other complications (Kilbride, Perry, Flatley, Turner, & Meyer, 2011; Mitchell, Parker, Giles, & White, 2010; Reeves et al., 2009). Models appropriate to clinical settings promote a culture of safety by including competencies around knowledge, skills, and behaviours that will improve communication and collaboration in the practice setting (Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaboration, 2010). The W(e) Learn model describes learning

outcomes that will result in benefits for the patient, the learner and the organization. These include learners improving their knowledge, skills, attitudes, perception, and behaviour towards interprofessional learning by participating in blended learning approaches that include both online and face-to-face learning (Casimiro et al., 2009). For example, on-line tutorials combined with team discussions of how time sensitive patient information should be disseminated via multiple modalities (i.e. corridor conversations and electronic patient records) could decrease the incidence of communication errors and potentially improve patient safety. Technology creates accessible and flexible learning environments that accommodate the needs of front-line workers (Reeves, 2009). In the tertiary care setting, front-line workers often have conflicting schedules and little time to attend classes. Luke and colleagues note that online learning could be a successful means for IPE delivery if the media design is useful, includes synchronous and asynchronous components and focuses on community learning (Reeves, 2009). The W(e) Learn model uses a socio-constructivist approach to design, develop and implement an online learning environment. In keeping with the socio-constructivist approach, Casimiro’s model is developed on the premise that learners create meaning from experience through interactions with other learners and with their learning environment. Accordingly, eLearning tools that encouraged social interactions were adopted (2009). The model was tested in a long-term care environment and focused on interprofessional knowledge and skills required to care for a palliative patient. eLearning case-based activities and resources were developed for physicians, pharmacists, nurses, housekeeping, administration and recreation therapists. The resources were divided into four sections that addressed the following: (1) what is a good endof-life journey? (2)what does it mean to care together, (3) provide palliative care through effective teamwork, and (4) reflect on and evaluate the provision of palliative care? (MacDonald, Stodel, Hall, & Weaver, 2009, p. 46) Overall, the participants reported finding the activities and resources to be helpful, realistic and easy to access (MacDonald et al., 2009). Although quantitative data indicated that the learners applied their new knowledge and skills in the workplace, there was no qualitative data to support this finding. The W(e) Learn model, like other IPE learning models, does not adequately address the assessment of learning and faculty development (Reeves, 2009). Simmons and Wagner note that when developing assessment tools, one must be sure to determine the intention of the tool, and to ensure that the learners are exposed to multiple competencies and assessment methods to improve rigor of the assessment (Reeves, 2009). The W(e) Learn model indicates that learner assessment must use pedagogical approaches that match the design of the learning (Casimiro et al., 2009). In so doing, this IPE model relies on various assessment tools. The online palliative study used the Attitude Towards Healthcare Teams questionnaire, which is a validated and reliable tool, to determine if learners’ attitudes toward the value and use of

DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.893419

team approaches changed (Heinemann, Schmitt, Farrell, & Brallier, 1999). While the results were not statistically significant, the authors described that participants expressed a preexisting positive outlook on team approaches and so it was hypothesized this might have affected the results (MacDonald et al., 2009). Because group learning can be turbulent, due to professional boundary issues and staff’s resistance to continuous IPE, faculty need training on how to prepare for teaching in this context (Reeves, 2009). The W(e) learn model considers whether a facilitator role is necessary and to what extent. However, it does not suggest how to train the facilitator. This gap is not unusual as there is limited guidance on how to support IPE faculty development in a healthcare setting (Silver & Leslie, 2009; Steinert, 2005). If continuous IPE is to be successfully implemented in clinical settings, the training of faculty must become a research and development priority.

Concluding comments Reeves’ (2009) trends were extremely helpful in the process of selecting an IPE model for continuous IPE in a tertiary care setting. By using these trends as an analytical framework, we were able to identify the W(e) Learn model as an informative guide for developing IPE for tertiary practice settings. However, across both Reeves’ trends and Casimiro’s model, we noted weaknesses. The seven trends were extracted from a small pool of articles and the concepts have not been well evaluated. Clearly, the trends should be tested further. From the trends, interprofessional cultural competency was not identified as a necessary component in developing continuous IPE. Cultural competency is defined by the National Health and Medical Research Council as: ‘‘a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system, agency or among professionals and enable that system, agency, or those professionals to work effectively in cross-cultural situations’’ (NHMRC, 2006, p. 7). Interprofessional cultural competency promotes a valuing of diversity and an awareness of the complexity of interprofessional dynamics. Depending on what theories were used to support the IPE model development, the interprofessional cultural competency factor may not have been addressed. Interprofessional and trans-cultural perspectives may be lacking in the literature, but they are needed for developing interprofessional health programs so as to improve the skills necessary to function in a multi-professional group (Purden, 2005). Along with this, interprofessional facilitators need to attain culturally sensitive skills in order to become role models, teach and transfer collaboration skills to the team (Banfield & Lackie, 2009). However, the W(e) Learn model did not acknowledge faculty development training in depth. This could be because online learning might not require facilitators. In contrast, a recent online IPE study using communities of practice framework showed that facilitators were necessary to ensure sustainability of the program as health professionals needed regular guidance in developing effective teamwork skills (Ho et al., 2010). Although the W(e) Learn model meets the needs of continuous IPE in the tertiary care setting, it has only been tested in a long term care environment. The analysis presented in this paper is not without its limitations. Selecting a model for continuous IPE is complicated by the many different models of tertiary care across countries and cultures, by the many different configurations of interprofessional teams that work in tertiary care settings, and by the power differentials and struggles that exist in interprofessional teams and in healthcare settings and systems. Consideration of such complexities needs to be incorporated into a model – a consideration that might be achieved by the incorporation of interprofessional cultural competence. But such an inclusion

Selecting an interprofessional education model

315

would need to be piloted and assessed before it could be incorporated into any model. Clearly, finding an IPE model in the healthcare literature that could be applied to a tertiary care setting was a complex process. After applying five models found in the literature to Reeves’ seven trends in continuing IPE developments, we found that the W(e) Learn model was most appropriate. While this model provides a well developed and researched framework, scholars have yet to develop a fully transferable, continuous IPE model for frontline workers. Therefore although the W(e) Learn is a strong contender, it could be argued that it does not translate effectively to a tertiary care context. We hope that this review helps tertiary care centers choose appropriate models, and that it encourages researchers to continue to develop models and/or vet existing models so that an ideal framework for IPE continuous learning can be created. However, as a recent commentary noted, it may well be folly to relentlessly seek a fully transferable model (Dow, Blue, Konrad, Earnest, & Reeves, 2013). There may not be a one size fits all students approach for continuous IPE given the exigencies and unique structures of individual practice sites.

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank Dr. Richard Barwell for recognizing the potential of this paper and encouraging its submission for publication.

Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the writing and contents of this paper. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the US Department of Defense or other federal agencies.

References American Interprofessional Health Collaborative. (2012). Transcending boundaries: Transforming learning. Retrieved from http://www.aihcus.org/program-resources/#national. Baldwin, D.C. (2007). Some historical notes on interdisciplinary and interprofessional education and practice in health care in the USA. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21, 23–37. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Banfield, V., & Lackie, K. (2009). Performance-based competencies for culturally responsive interprofessional collaborative practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 611–620. Barr, H. (1998). Competent to collaborate: Towards a competency-based model for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 12, 181–187. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. (2010). Interprofessional education & core competencies: Literature review. Retrieved from http://www.cihc.ca/files/publications/CIHC_IPELitReview_May07.pdf. Casimiro, L., MacDonald, C.J., Thompson, T.L., & Stodel, E.J. (2009). Grounding theories of W(e) learn: A framework for online interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 390–400. Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE). (2002). Definition of Interprofessional Education (revised). Retrieved from http://www. caipe.org.uk/. Charles, G., Bainbridge, L., & Gilbert, J. (2010). The University of British Columbia model of interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24, 9–18. Clark, P. G. (2006). What would a theory of interprofessional education look like? Some suggestions for developing a theoretical framework for teamwork training. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20, 577–589. D’Amour, D., & Oandasan, I. (2005). Interprofessionality as the field of interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: An emerging concept. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 8–20. Department of Health. (2000). A health service of all the talents: Developing the NHS workforce – consultation document on the review of workforce planning. Retrieved from Government of UK website: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/www.dh.gov.uk/en/

316

P. Menard & L. Varpio

Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance /DH_4007967. Dow, A., Blue, A., Konrad, S.C., Earnest, M., Reeves, S. (2013). The moving target: Outcomes of interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27, 353–355. Engestrom, Y., Engestrom, R., & Vahaaho, T. (1999). When the center does not hold: The importance of Knotworking. In S. Chaiklin, M. Hedegaard, & U.J. Jensen (Eds.), Activity theory and social practice (pp. 345–374). Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press. European Interprofessional Education Network. (2011). Charter for IPE in Europe. Retrieved from http://eipen.eu/doc/Charter_for_ IPE_in_Europe.pdf. Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Reeves, S., Koppel, I., Barr, H. (2005). Effective interprofessional education: development, delivery and evaluation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Goldman, J., Zwarenstein, M., Bhattacharyya, O., & Reeves, S. (2009). Improving the clarity of the interprofessional field: Implications for research and continuing interprofessional education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 29, 151–156. Health Canada (2003). First Ministers’ accord on health renewal. Retrieved from Government of Canada website: http://www.hcsc.gc.ca/english/hca2003/accord.html. Heinemann, G., Schmitt, M., Farrell, M., & Brallier, S. (1999). Development of an attitudes toward health care teams scale. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 22, 123–142. Ho, K., Jarvis-Selinger, S., Norman, C.D., Li, L.C., Olatunbosun, T., Cressman, C., & Nguyen, A. (2010). Electronic communities of practice: Guidelines from a project. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 30, 139–143. Ilott, I., Gerrish, K., Laker, S., & Bray, K. (2013). Naming and framing the problem: Using theories, models and conceptual frameworks (Issue Brief No. 10-2). Retrieved from CLAHRC for South Yorkshire website: http://clahrc-sy.nihr.ac.uk/resources-articles.html. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Institute of Medicine. (2008). Retooling for an aging America: Building the health care workforce. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Jones, S., & Joss, R. (1995). Models of professionalism. In M. Yelloly & M. Henkel (Eds.), Learning and teaching in social work (pp. 15–33). London: Jessica Kingsley. Kilbride, C., Perry, L., Flatley, M., Turner, E., & Meyer, J. (2011). Developing theory and practice: Creation of a community of practice through action research produced excellence in stroke care. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 25, 91–97. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actornetwork theory. New York: Oxford University Press. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Lingard, L., Regehr, G., Orser, B., Reznick, R., Baker, R., Doran, D., Espin, S., et al. (2008). Evaluation of a preoperative checklist and team briefing among surgeons, nurses, and anesthesiologists to reduce failures in communication. JAMA Surgery, 143, 12–17. MacDonald, C.J., Stodel, E.J., Hall, P., & Weaver, L. (2009). The impact of an online learning resource designed to enhance interprofessional collaborative practice in palliative care: findings from the caring together pilot project. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education, 11, 42–66. Mann, K.V., Mcfetridge-Durdle, J., Martin-Misener, R., Clovis, J., Rowe, R., Beanlands, H., & Sarria, M. (2009). Interprofessional

J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 311–316

education for students of the health professions: The ‘‘Seamless care’’ model. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 224–233. Mitchell, R., Parker, V., Giles, M., & White, N. (2010). Review: Toward realizing the potential of diversity in composition of interprofessional health care teams. Medical Care Research and Review, 67, 3–26. National Health and Medical Research Council. (2006). Cultural Competency in Health: A guide for policy, partnerships and participation. Canberra (AUST): Commonwealth of Australia. Oandasan, I., & Reeves S. (2005). Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: The learner, the educator and the learning context. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 121–38. Pecukonis, E., Doyle, O., & Bliss, D.L. (2008). Reducing barriers to interprofessional training: Promoting interprofessional cultural competence. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22, 417–428. Pethybridge, J. (2004). How team working influences discharge planning from hospital: A study of four multidisciplinary teams in an acute hospital in England. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18, 29–41. Plsek, P.E., & Grenhalgh, T. (2001). The challenge of complexity in healthcare. British Medical Journal, 323, 625–628. Purden, M. (2005). Cultural considerations in interprofessional education and practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 224–234. Reeves, S. (2009). An overview of continuing interprofessional education. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 29, 142–146. Reeves, S., Lewin, S., Espin, S., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010). Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. UK: Blackwell Publishing. Reeves, S., Rice, K., Conn, L.G., Miller, K., Kenaszchuk, C., & Zwarenstein, M. (2009). Interprofessional interaction, negotiation and non-negotiation on general internal medicine wards. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 633–645. Rice, K., Zwarenstein, M., Conn, L.G., Kenaszchuk, C., Russell, A., & Reeves, S. (2010). An intervention to improve interprofessional collaboration and communications: A comparative qualitative study. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 24, 350–361. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Sargeant, J. (2009). Theories to aid understanding and implementation of interprofessional education. Journal of Continuing Education in Health Professions, 29, 178–184. Silver, I.L., & Leslie, K. (2009). Faculty development for continuing interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 29, 172–177. Skjorshammer, M. (2001). Co-operation and conflicts in a hospital: Interprofessional differences in perception and management of conflicts. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 15, 7–18. Steinert, Y. (2005). Learning together to teach together: Interprofessional education and faculty development. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 60–75. Thistlethwaite, J. (2012). Interprofessional education: A review of context, learning and the research agenda. Medical Education, 46, 58–70. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning meaning and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press. World Health Organization. (2006). Working together for health: The world health report. Retrieved from The World Health Organization website: http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/. World Health Organization. (2010). Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Copyright of Journal of Interprofessional Care is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Selecting an interprofessional education model for a tertiary health care setting.

The World Health Organization describes interprofessional education (IPE) and collaboration as necessary components of all health professionals' educa...
184KB Sizes 0 Downloads 3 Views