Wael Haddara1, Lorelei Lingard. 1. Dr. Haddara is assistant professor, Division of Critical Care Medicine and Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. Dr. Lingard is director, Centre for Education Research & Innovation, and professor, Department of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry and Faculty of Education at Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) has become a dominant idea in both medical education and clinical care as reflected in its incorporation into competency-based educational frameworks and hospital accreditation models. This study examined the published literature to explore whether a shared IPC discourse underpins these current efforts. METHOD: Using a critical discourse analysis methodology informed by Michel Foucault's approach, the authors analyzed an archive of 188 texts published from 1960 through 2011. The authors identified the texts through a search of PubMed and CINAHL. RESULTS: The authors identified two major discourses in IPC: utilitarian and emancipatory. The utilitarian discourse is characterized by a positivist, experimental approach to the question of whether IPC is useful in patient care and, if so, what features best promote successful outcomes. This discourse uses the language of "evidence" and "validity." The emancipatory discourse is characterized by a constructivist approach concerned primarily with equalizing power relations among health practitioners; its language includes "power" and "dominance." CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IPC is not a single, coherent idea in medical education and health care. At least two different IPC discourses exist, each with its own distinctive truths, objects, and language. The extent to which educators and health care practitioners may tacitly align with one discourse or the other may explain the tensions that have accompanied the conceptualization, implementation, and assessment of IPC. Explicit acknowledgment of and attention to these discourses could improve the coherence and impact of IPC efforts in educational and clinical settings.
PURPOSE: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) has become a dominant idea in both medical education and clinical care as reflected in its incorporation into competency-based educational frameworks and hospital accreditation models. This study examined the published literature to explore whether a shared IPC discourse underpins these current efforts. METHOD: Using a critical discourse analysis methodology informed by Michel Foucault's approach, the authors analyzed an archive of 188 texts published from 1960 through 2011. The authors identified the texts through a search of PubMed and CINAHL. RESULTS: The authors identified two major discourses in IPC: utilitarian and emancipatory. The utilitarian discourse is characterized by a positivist, experimental approach to the question of whether IPC is useful in patient care and, if so, what features best promote successful outcomes. This discourse uses the language of "evidence" and "validity." The emancipatory discourse is characterized by a constructivist approach concerned primarily with equalizing power relations among health practitioners; its language includes "power" and "dominance." CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that IPC is not a single, coherent idea in medical education and health care. At least two different IPC discourses exist, each with its own distinctive truths, objects, and language. The extent to which educators and health care practitioners may tacitly align with one discourse or the other may explain the tensions that have accompanied the conceptualization, implementation, and assessment of IPC. Explicit acknowledgment of and attention to these discourses could improve the coherence and impact of IPC efforts in educational and clinical settings.
Authors: Abby A Kahaleh; Jennifer Danielson; Kari L Franson; Wesley A Nuffer; Elena M Umland Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Jamie Kellar; Elise Paradis; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Mirjam G A Oude Egbrink; Zubin Austin Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Olivia A Schultz; Robert S Hight; Stanley Gutiontov; Ravi Chandra; Jeanne Farnan; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Jan Breckwoldt; Monika Knecht; Ralph Massée; Barbara Flach; Caroline Hofmann-Huber; Sylvia Kaap-Fröhlich; Claudia M Witt; Ruth Aeberhard; Hugo Sax Journal: Antimicrob Resist Infect Control Date: 2019-05-14 Impact factor: 4.887