http://informahealthcare.com/jic ISSN: 1356-1820 (print), 1469-9567 (electronic) J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 376–378 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.895978
SHORT REPORT
An innovative interprofessional education model to engage community and nonclinical participants Monica Nandan1 and Patricia Scott2 1
Department of Social Work and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA and 2School of Social Work, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA Abstract
Keywords
Many institutions and individuals are encouraging use of interprofessional educational models to prepare future health care professionals who can effectively address complex healthcare needs in a dynamic healthcare environment. This report describes a seven-step model to plan and implement university-based interprofessional healthcare education. The model is unique in that it incorporates faculty and students from both clinical and nonclinical professional programs, administrators, as well as community partners into the interprofessional healthcare education deliberation and implementation process. It also incorporates many guiding principles for planning and implementing interprofessional education discussed in the literature.
Interdisciplinary, interprofessional collaboration, interprofessional earning, interprofessional education, partnership, shared problem solving
Introduction This report describes an educational model that makes a unique contribution to the field of interprofessional education (IPE). It builds on educational models developed by Newell (1994), Krometis, Clark, Gonzales, and Leslie (2011) and several other authors by inviting a broader spectrum of stakeholders into the IPE planning and implementation process (see stakeholders in center of Figure 1). The model’s unique elements stem from the fact that it incorporates faculty and students from both clinical and nonclinical professional programs (e.g. social work, nursing, and business), university administrators, and community partners into the interprofessional healthcare education deliberation and implementation process. It also incorporates guiding principles for planning and implementing IPE discussed in the literature (e.g. Freeth, Hammick, Reeves, Koppel & Barr, 2005; Gilbert, 2005; Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel [IPEC], 2011). Most educational models do not invite input from community members, nor do the clinically-focused educational models engage nonclinical educators. However, addressing complex health issues, especially within a community context, requires collaboration among different stakeholders (CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee, 2011). Hence, educational models that incorporate such practices should be promoted in higher education. A systems framework guides each step in the planning and implementation process (see process in Figure 1) and is
Correspondence: Monica Nandan, PhD, MSW, MBA, Department of Social Work and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road NW, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
History Received 20 June 2013 Revised 24 November 2013 Accepted 15 February 2014 Published online 11 March 2014
characterized by clear inputs, throughputs, and outputs. Each step builds on previous steps and requires an understanding of the different components (e.g. stakeholders, resources, ideas), and interdependent subsystems (e.g. steps, university, community) within their contexts, important to effective interprofessional healthcare education. A feedback loop guides future planning and implementation toward the goal of continuous quality improvement.
Steps for developing an interprofessional educational model Step 1: Interprofessional education infrastructure Senior administrators and faculty from different disciplines committed to IPE – and influential enough to lead organizational change efforts – meet to build institutional legitimacy, create a sense of urgency, and develop an IPE vision, support and infrastructure essential (Kotter International). Decisions about workload, governance, funding, dedicated space and time are made at the outset to encourage buy-in from other university stakeholders (Gilbert, 2005). Step 2: Planning team structure and culture Once the infrastructure is in place, the university assembles a planning team comprised of committed, credible leaders among the constituency groups identified in Figure 1. Before the formal planning process begins, team members create a team mindset necessary for effective interprofessional education by developing the necessary group norms, values/ethics, culture, goals, roles, interprofessional communication and decision-making processes needed to function as a team (Freeth et al., 2005). Team members must train themselves in interprofessional practice (IPP) or hire a consultant to facilitate training, to enable team members to
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.895978
Innovative interprofessional model
377
Figure 1. Interprofessional educational model: stakeholders and process. Note: Adapted from Nandan and Scott (in press).
become IPP competent before they commence planning and implementing the educational model (IPEC, 2011, p. 34). Step 3: Community input and yearlong deliberation The IPE team invites the community to submit health-related proposals for team consideration, which begins a yearlong deliberation, planning, and implementation process. Proposals selected for consideration must be complex (e.g. high blood pressure among lower socioeconomic groups in a specific geographic location), reflect medical, socioeconomic, psychological, and behavioral causes, and require input from multiple professions/disciplines. Eventually, the planning team selects a proposal to pursue based on the university’s mission and goals, participating faculty members’ expertise, resources, time commitment and urgency level. The team’s goals include addressing the issue holistically and in a financially sustainable fashion. The team invites community representatives familiar with the issue to collaborate with team members to understand the health issue’s contextual complexity and to identify community resources and barriers to change. Step 4: IPE curriculum development IPE team members, along with community collaborators, develop the purpose, structure, and outcome of the IPE curriculum. The curriculum utilizes a problem- and practice-based approach that allows students to investigate and address real-life health issues. Furthermore, the curriculum also is competency-based requiring students to demonstrate both profession-specific and
interprofessional competencies important to good patient outcomes (IPEC, 2011). Ultimately, the planning team develops two courses – an interdisciplinary capstone course and an internship – in close consultation with interprofessional internship sites. The courses are cross-listed in the university’s course schedule based on the number of participating disciplines involved in course delivery. Step 5: Recruiting students Students from the participating programs in their final year of school are invited to enroll in the aforementioned two-course sequence. As Gilbert (2005) notes, ‘‘The best time to immerse (rather than expose) students in this kind of work is in the year in which they will graduate from a professional program’’ (p. 100). Prior to that, the ‘‘need for disciplinary identify [sic] is a pronounced barrier to full immersion in IPE’’ (Gilbert, 2005, p. 100). Step 6: Implementation of model Faculty members’s team teaches the capstone course and demonstrates interprofessional competencies during the process. Faculty utilize a variety of didactic, active, and interactive pedagogical approaches including experiential learning, reflective writing, discussion, small group activities, collaborative learning, role-play, case studies, simulations, and debriefings (Freeth et al., 2005). In the capstone course, student teams work to holistically understand the health issue and design an intervention/venture/ project, in consultation with the community members who
378
M. Nandan & P. Scott
submitted the proposal. During the subsequent internship semester, students implement the intervention while the IPE team members – as well as trained clinical and nonclinical personnel located at the internship sites – mentor students and model the interprofessional competencies they expect students to demonstrate. Step 7: Feedback loop The team uses ongoing formative and summative evaluation to modify the pedagogy, curriculum, and the implementation process in subsequent years and also to determine when to consider new healthcare proposals. This decision is based on the issue’s severity under consideration and the progress made towards holistically addressing the issue within the community. The IPE team continues to communicate its vision and experience to the community and university to ensure continued support. This completes the feedback loop.
Concluding comments In conclusion, the readers are cautioned about the time, effort, humility, and patience required to plan, implement, and learn from the above process. Most existing health-related interprofessional education models (e.g. Abu-Rish et al., 2012; IPEC, 2011) do not engage community residents nor do they devote an extended time period for curriculum planning. The model described in this report engages relevant community members, administrators, and both clinical and non-clinical faculty in curriculum planning after the university invites health-related proposals from surrounding communities.
J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 376–378
Declaration of interest The authors declare no conflicting interests. The authors alone are responsible for the writing and content of this article.
References Abu-Rish, E., Kim, S., Choe, L., Varpio, L., Malik, E., White, A.A., Craddick, K., et al. (2012). Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: A literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 444–451. CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee. (2011). Principles of community engagement (2nd ed.). (No. 11-7782). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Human and Health Services. Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Reeves, S., Koppel, I., & Barr, H. (2005). Effective interprofessional education: Development, delivery and evaluation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Gilbert, J. (2005). Interprofessional learning and higher education structural barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 87–106. Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel (IPEC). (2011). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Kotter International. The 8-step process for leading change. Retrieved from http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps. Krometis, L., Clark, E., Gonzalez, V., & Leslie, M. (2011). The ‘‘death’’ of disciplines: Development of a team-taught course to provide an interdisciplinary perspective for first-year students. College Teaching, 59, 73–78. Nandan, M., & Scott, P. (in press). Interprofessional practice and education: Holistic approaches to complex health care challenges. Journal of Allied Health. Newell, W. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 58, 35–51.
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.
SHORT REPORT
An innovative interprofessional education model to engage community and nonclinical participants Monica Nandan1 and Patricia Scott2 1
Department of Social Work and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA and 2School of Social Work, University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, MO, USA Abstract
Keywords
Many institutions and individuals are encouraging use of interprofessional educational models to prepare future health care professionals who can effectively address complex healthcare needs in a dynamic healthcare environment. This report describes a seven-step model to plan and implement university-based interprofessional healthcare education. The model is unique in that it incorporates faculty and students from both clinical and nonclinical professional programs, administrators, as well as community partners into the interprofessional healthcare education deliberation and implementation process. It also incorporates many guiding principles for planning and implementing interprofessional education discussed in the literature.
Interdisciplinary, interprofessional collaboration, interprofessional earning, interprofessional education, partnership, shared problem solving
Introduction This report describes an educational model that makes a unique contribution to the field of interprofessional education (IPE). It builds on educational models developed by Newell (1994), Krometis, Clark, Gonzales, and Leslie (2011) and several other authors by inviting a broader spectrum of stakeholders into the IPE planning and implementation process (see stakeholders in center of Figure 1). The model’s unique elements stem from the fact that it incorporates faculty and students from both clinical and nonclinical professional programs (e.g. social work, nursing, and business), university administrators, and community partners into the interprofessional healthcare education deliberation and implementation process. It also incorporates guiding principles for planning and implementing IPE discussed in the literature (e.g. Freeth, Hammick, Reeves, Koppel & Barr, 2005; Gilbert, 2005; Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel [IPEC], 2011). Most educational models do not invite input from community members, nor do the clinically-focused educational models engage nonclinical educators. However, addressing complex health issues, especially within a community context, requires collaboration among different stakeholders (CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee, 2011). Hence, educational models that incorporate such practices should be promoted in higher education. A systems framework guides each step in the planning and implementation process (see process in Figure 1) and is
Correspondence: Monica Nandan, PhD, MSW, MBA, Department of Social Work and Human Services, Kennesaw State University, 1000 Chastain Road NW, Kennesaw, GA 30144, USA. E-mail: [email protected]
History Received 20 June 2013 Revised 24 November 2013 Accepted 15 February 2014 Published online 11 March 2014
characterized by clear inputs, throughputs, and outputs. Each step builds on previous steps and requires an understanding of the different components (e.g. stakeholders, resources, ideas), and interdependent subsystems (e.g. steps, university, community) within their contexts, important to effective interprofessional healthcare education. A feedback loop guides future planning and implementation toward the goal of continuous quality improvement.
Steps for developing an interprofessional educational model Step 1: Interprofessional education infrastructure Senior administrators and faculty from different disciplines committed to IPE – and influential enough to lead organizational change efforts – meet to build institutional legitimacy, create a sense of urgency, and develop an IPE vision, support and infrastructure essential (Kotter International). Decisions about workload, governance, funding, dedicated space and time are made at the outset to encourage buy-in from other university stakeholders (Gilbert, 2005). Step 2: Planning team structure and culture Once the infrastructure is in place, the university assembles a planning team comprised of committed, credible leaders among the constituency groups identified in Figure 1. Before the formal planning process begins, team members create a team mindset necessary for effective interprofessional education by developing the necessary group norms, values/ethics, culture, goals, roles, interprofessional communication and decision-making processes needed to function as a team (Freeth et al., 2005). Team members must train themselves in interprofessional practice (IPP) or hire a consultant to facilitate training, to enable team members to
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.895978
Innovative interprofessional model
377
Figure 1. Interprofessional educational model: stakeholders and process. Note: Adapted from Nandan and Scott (in press).
become IPP competent before they commence planning and implementing the educational model (IPEC, 2011, p. 34). Step 3: Community input and yearlong deliberation The IPE team invites the community to submit health-related proposals for team consideration, which begins a yearlong deliberation, planning, and implementation process. Proposals selected for consideration must be complex (e.g. high blood pressure among lower socioeconomic groups in a specific geographic location), reflect medical, socioeconomic, psychological, and behavioral causes, and require input from multiple professions/disciplines. Eventually, the planning team selects a proposal to pursue based on the university’s mission and goals, participating faculty members’ expertise, resources, time commitment and urgency level. The team’s goals include addressing the issue holistically and in a financially sustainable fashion. The team invites community representatives familiar with the issue to collaborate with team members to understand the health issue’s contextual complexity and to identify community resources and barriers to change. Step 4: IPE curriculum development IPE team members, along with community collaborators, develop the purpose, structure, and outcome of the IPE curriculum. The curriculum utilizes a problem- and practice-based approach that allows students to investigate and address real-life health issues. Furthermore, the curriculum also is competency-based requiring students to demonstrate both profession-specific and
interprofessional competencies important to good patient outcomes (IPEC, 2011). Ultimately, the planning team develops two courses – an interdisciplinary capstone course and an internship – in close consultation with interprofessional internship sites. The courses are cross-listed in the university’s course schedule based on the number of participating disciplines involved in course delivery. Step 5: Recruiting students Students from the participating programs in their final year of school are invited to enroll in the aforementioned two-course sequence. As Gilbert (2005) notes, ‘‘The best time to immerse (rather than expose) students in this kind of work is in the year in which they will graduate from a professional program’’ (p. 100). Prior to that, the ‘‘need for disciplinary identify [sic] is a pronounced barrier to full immersion in IPE’’ (Gilbert, 2005, p. 100). Step 6: Implementation of model Faculty members’s team teaches the capstone course and demonstrates interprofessional competencies during the process. Faculty utilize a variety of didactic, active, and interactive pedagogical approaches including experiential learning, reflective writing, discussion, small group activities, collaborative learning, role-play, case studies, simulations, and debriefings (Freeth et al., 2005). In the capstone course, student teams work to holistically understand the health issue and design an intervention/venture/ project, in consultation with the community members who
378
M. Nandan & P. Scott
submitted the proposal. During the subsequent internship semester, students implement the intervention while the IPE team members – as well as trained clinical and nonclinical personnel located at the internship sites – mentor students and model the interprofessional competencies they expect students to demonstrate. Step 7: Feedback loop The team uses ongoing formative and summative evaluation to modify the pedagogy, curriculum, and the implementation process in subsequent years and also to determine when to consider new healthcare proposals. This decision is based on the issue’s severity under consideration and the progress made towards holistically addressing the issue within the community. The IPE team continues to communicate its vision and experience to the community and university to ensure continued support. This completes the feedback loop.
Concluding comments In conclusion, the readers are cautioned about the time, effort, humility, and patience required to plan, implement, and learn from the above process. Most existing health-related interprofessional education models (e.g. Abu-Rish et al., 2012; IPEC, 2011) do not engage community residents nor do they devote an extended time period for curriculum planning. The model described in this report engages relevant community members, administrators, and both clinical and non-clinical faculty in curriculum planning after the university invites health-related proposals from surrounding communities.
J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 376–378
Declaration of interest The authors declare no conflicting interests. The authors alone are responsible for the writing and content of this article.
References Abu-Rish, E., Kim, S., Choe, L., Varpio, L., Malik, E., White, A.A., Craddick, K., et al. (2012). Current trends in interprofessional education of health sciences students: A literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 444–451. CTSA Community Engagement Key Function Committee. (2011). Principles of community engagement (2nd ed.). (No. 11-7782). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Human and Health Services. Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Reeves, S., Koppel, I., & Barr, H. (2005). Effective interprofessional education: Development, delivery and evaluation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Gilbert, J. (2005). Interprofessional learning and higher education structural barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 19, 87–106. Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel (IPEC). (2011). Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Kotter International. The 8-step process for leading change. Retrieved from http://www.kotterinternational.com/our-principles/changesteps. Krometis, L., Clark, E., Gonzalez, V., & Leslie, M. (2011). The ‘‘death’’ of disciplines: Development of a team-taught course to provide an interdisciplinary perspective for first-year students. College Teaching, 59, 73–78. Nandan, M., & Scott, P. (in press). Interprofessional practice and education: Holistic approaches to complex health care challenges. Journal of Allied Health. Newell, W. (1994). Designing interdisciplinary courses. New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 58, 35–51.
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.
