| Literature DB >> 27756294 |
Eric Wong1,2, Jasmine J Leslie2,3, Judith A Soon1,2, Wendy V Norman4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Virtual Interprofessional Patients-Computer-Assisted Reproductive Health Education for Students (VIP-CARES) Project took place during the summers of 2010-2012 for eight weeks each year at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Undergraduate health care students worked collaboratively to develop virtual patient case-based learning modules on the topic of family planning. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the changes in perception towards interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among the participants, before and after the project.Entities:
Keywords: Canada; Health professional education; Interprofessional; Medical education; Medicine; Midwifery; Mixed methods; Nursing; Pharmacy; Qualitative; Sexual health education; Survey; Virtual patients
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27756294 PMCID: PMC5069921 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0797-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Demographic information of participants across the 3 years (2010–2012) who completed all components of the mixed methods assessment for the interprofessional VIP-CARES Project
| Total number of students | 26 | ||||||
| Mean Age | 26.0 (±2.8) | ||||||
| Gender | Female: 23 (88 %) | ||||||
| Discipline | Medicine | Pharmacy | Nursing | Midwifery | Dentistry | Counselling Psychology | Computer Science |
| ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| • Year 1 (2010) (9 participants) | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| • Year 2 (2011) (9 participants) | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| • Year 3 (2012) (8 participants) | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Proportion of program years completed per discipline ( | 0.36 (0.20) | 0.75 (0) | 0.63 (0.25) | 0.38 (0.14) | 0.25 (0) | 1.0 (0) | 1.0 (0) |
| Students with prior inter-professional experience per discipline | 4 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
Pre- and post- mean scores and differences on survey scales for interprofessional collaboration and competencies among VIP-CARES Project students
| Interprofessional (IP) Attitudes section adapted from Memorial University Questionnaire (Five point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) | Mean score of all participants before | Mean score of all participants after | Mean score differences for each participant |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of completed surveys |
|
| ||
| IP learning will help students to understand their own professional limitations. | 4.4 (0.6) | 4.5 (0.6) | 0.0 (0.7) | 1.00 |
| Developing an IP patient/client care plan is excessively time consuming. | 2.6 (0.8) | 2.3 (0.8) | −0.3 (0.9) | 0.11 |
| The IP approach makes the delivery of care more efficient. | 4.2 (0.7) | 4.2 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.6) | 0.74 |
| Developing a care plan with other team members avoids errors in delivering care. | 4.2 (0.7) | 4.3 (0.7) | +0.2 (0.7) | 0.20 |
| Working in an IP manner unnecessarily complicates things most of the time. | 1.8 (0.5) | 1.8 (0.6) | +0.1 (0.8) | 0.44 |
| The IP approach improves the quality of care to patients/clients. | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.3 (0.7) | −0.3 (0.7) | 0.02a |
| In most instances, the time required for IP consultations could be better spent in other ways. | 2.0 (0.7) | 2.0 (0.7) | −0.2 (0.9) | 0.44 |
| IP approach permits health professionals to meet the needs of family caregivers as well as patients. | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.9) | 0.83 |
| Team meetings foster communication among team members from different disciplines. | 4.1 (0.6) | 4.4 (0.6) | +0.2 (0.9) | 0.18 |
| IP learning will help students think positively about other health care professionals. | 4.3 (0.6) | 4.3 (0.8) | 0.0 (0.8) | 0.81 |
| Clinical info can only be learned effectively when taught within one’s own department. | 1.9 (0.9) | 1.8 (0.6) | −0.1 (0.7) | 0.74 |
| Students in my professional group would benefit from IP small group projects. | 4.2 (0.8) | 4.2 (0.7) | +0.1 (0.7) | 0.37 |
| It is not necessary for undergraduate health care students to learn together. | 1.8 (0.7) | 1.7 (0.7) | −0.1 (0.6) | 0.48 |
| IP work before qualification would improve working relationships after qualification. | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.2 (0.9) | 0.0 (1.0) | 0.78 |
| IP work helps undergraduates to become more effective team members. | 4.3 (0.6) | 4.3 (0.9) | 0.0 (1.1) | 0.64 |
|
| ||||
| Number of completed surveys |
|
| ||
| Communicator | 6.4 (0.6) | 6.7 (1.2) | +0.3 (0.9) | 0.12 |
| Collaborator | 6.7 (1.2) | 6.9 (1.1) | +0.3 (1.0) | 0.18 |
| Health Advocate | 6.2 (1.2) | 6.8 (1.3) | +0.5 (1.1) | 0.05a |
| Manager | 5.6 (1.5) | 6.3 (1.3) | +0.6 (1.1) | 0.02a |
| Medical Expert | 5.0 (1.1) | 5.7 (1.4) | +0.6 (1.3) | 0.03a |
| Professional | 7.3 (1.4) | 7.2 (1.1) | −0.1 (0.9) | 0.64 |
| Scholar | 6.3 (1.3) | 6.8 (1.5) | +0.4 (1.6) | 0.19 |
|
| ||||
| Number of completed surveys |
|
| ||
| Interprofessional Communication | 6.2 (1.2) | 7.0 (1.2) | +0.7 (1.6) | 0.04a |
| Patient Centered Care | 6.5 (1.2) | 6.9 (1.5) | +0.4 (1.3) | 0.24 |
| Role Clarification | 6.0 (1.3) | 7.0 (1.3) | +0.9 (1.3) | 0.01a |
| Team Functioning | 6.3 (1.3) | 7.2 (1.5) | +0.8 (1.7) | 0.05a |
| Collaborative Leadership | 5.9 (1.1) | 6.9 (1.4) | +0.9 (1.4) | 0.01a |
| Interprofessional Conflict Resolution | 5.7 (1.5) | 6.2 (1.6) | +0.6 (1.5) | 0.10 |
aStatistically significant result