51
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9.

      Medical Teacher
      Cooperative Behavior, Curriculum, Education, Professional, methods, organization & administration, Educational Measurement, Faculty, Female, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Humans, Interprofessional Relations, Male, Program Evaluation, Sex Factors, Students, Health Occupations

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          BACKGROUND AND REVIEW CONTEXT: Evidence to support the proposition that learning together will help practitioners and agencies work better together remains limited and thinly spread. This review identified, collated, analysed and synthesised the best available contemporary evidence from 21 of the strongest evaluations of IPE to inform the above proposition. In this way we sought to help shape future interprofessional education and maximize the potential for interprofessional learning to contribute to collaborative practice and better care. To identify and review the strongest evaluations of IPE. To classify the outcomes of IPE and note the influence of context on particular outcomes. To develop a narrative about the mechanisms that underpin and inform positive and negative outcomes of IPE. Bibliographic database searches as follows: Medline 1966-2003, CINAHL 1982-2001, BEI 1964-2001, ASSIA 1990-2003 which produced 10,495 abstracts. Subsequently, 884 full papers were obtained and scrutinized. In addition, hand searching (2003-5 issues) of 21 journals known to have published two or more higher quality studies from a previous review. Peer-reviewed papers and reports included in the review had to be formal educational initiatives attended by at least two of the many professional groups from health and social care, with the objective of improving care; and learning with, from and about each other. Standard systematic review procedures were applied for sifting abstracts, scrutinizing full papers and abstracting data. Two members of the team checked each abstract to decide whether the full paper should be read. A third member was consulted over any discrepancies. Similarly, each full paper was read by at least two members of the team and agreement sought before passing it to one member of the team (SR) for data abstraction. Other members of the team checked 10% of the abstraction records. Coding into a Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) data base led to collection of different outcome measures used in the primary studies via the common metric of an adapted Kirkpatrick's four-level model of educational outcomes. Additionally, a narrative synthesis was built after analysis of primary data with the 3-P model (presage-process-product) of education development and delivery. Government calls for enhanced collaboration amongst practitioners frequently leads to IPE that is then developed and delivered by educators, practitioners or service managers. Staff development is a key influence on the effectiveness of IPE for learners who all have unique values about themselves and others. Authenticity and customization of IPE are important mechanisms for positive outcomes of IPE. Interprofessional education is generally well received, enabling knowledge and skills necessary for collaborative working to be learnt; it is less able to positively influence attitudes and perceptions towards others in the service delivery team. In the context of quality improvement initiatives interprofessional education is frequently used as a mechanism to enhance the development of practice and improvement of services.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Error reduction and performance improvement in the emergency department through formal teamwork training: evaluation results of the MedTeams project.

          To evaluate the effectiveness of training and institutionalizing teamwork behaviors, drawn from aviation crew resource management (CRM) programs, on emergency department (ED) staff organized into caregiver teams. Nine teaching and community hospital EDs. A prospective multicenter evaluation using a quasi-experimental, untreated control group design with one pretest and two posttests of the Emergency Team Coordination Course (ETCC). The experimental group, comprised of 684 physicians, nurses, and technicians, received the ETCC and implemented formal teamwork structures and processes. Assessments occurred prior to training, and at intervals of four and eight months after training. Three outcome constructs were evaluated: team behavior, ED performance, and attitudes and opinions. Trained observers rated ED staff team behaviors and made observations of clinical errors, a measure of ED performance. Staff and patients in the EDs completed surveys measuring attitudes and opinions. Hospital EDs were the units of analysis for the seven outcome measures. Prior to aggregating data at the hospital level, scale properties of surveys and event-related observations were evaluated at the respondent or case level. A statistically significant improvement in quality of team behaviors was shown between the experimental and control groups following training (p = .012). Subjective workload was not affected by the intervention (p = .668). The clinical error rate significantly decreased from 30.9 percent to 4.4 percent in the experimental group (p = .039). In the experimental group, the ED staffs' attitudes toward teamwork increased (p = .047) and staff assessments of institutional support showed a significant increase (p = .040). Our findings point to the effectiveness of formal teamwork training for improving team behaviors, reducing errors, and improving staff attitudes among the ETCC-trained hospitals.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality.

            The evaluation of the methodologic quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is central to evidence-based health care. Important methodologic detail may, however, be omitted from published reports, and the quality of reporting is therefore often used as a proxy measure for methodologic quality. We examined the relationship between reporting quality and methodologic quality of published RCTs. Study of 60 reports of placebo-controlled trials published in English-language journals from 1985 to 1997. Reporting quality was measured using a 25-item scale based on the 1996 issue of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT). Concealment of allocation, appropriate blinding, and analysis according to the intention-to-treat principle were indicators of methodologic quality. Methodologic quality was compared between groups of trials defined by reporting quality scores of low, intermediate, and high. Reporting quality scores were compared between groups defined by high and low methodologic quality. Among 23 trials of low reporting quality (median score, 9 [range, 3.5-10.5]), allocation concealment was unclear for all but 1 trial, but there were 16 trials (70%) with adequate blinding and 9 trials (39%) that had been analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Among 18 trials of high reporting quality (median score, 18 [range 16.5-22.0]), there were 8 trials (44%) with adequate allocation concealment, 16 trials (89%) with adequate blinding, and 13 trials (72%) analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. The median reporting score was 15.0 for the 33 trials that were analyzed according to intention-to-treat principle and 14.5 for the 14 trials with on-treatment analyses (P =.67). Similar quality of reporting may hide important differences in methodologic quality, and well-conducted trials may be reported badly. A clear distinction should be made between these 2 dimensions of the quality of RCTs.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: the learner, the educator and the learning context.

              This paper is the first of two that highlights key elements needed for consideration in the planning and implementation of interprofessional educational (IPE) interventions at both the pre and post-licensure qualification education levels. There is still much to be learned about the pedagogical constructs related to IPE. Part 1 of this series discusses the learning context for IPE and considers questions related to the "who, what, where, when and how" related to IPE. Through a systematic literature review that was conducted for Health Canada in its move to advance Interprofessional Education for Patient Centred Practice (IECPCP), this paper provides background information that can be helpful for those involved in an interprofessional initiative. A historical review of IPE sets the international context for this area and reflects the work that has been done and is currently being initiated and implemented to advance IPE for health professional students. Much can be learned from the literature related to the pedagogical approaches that have been tried and the issues that need to be addressed related to the learner, the educator and the learning context which this paper examines.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Comments

                Comment on this article