http://informahealthcare.com/jic ISSN: 1356-1820 (print), 1469-9567 (electronic) J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 381–383 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.890923
SHORT REPORT
Collaboration behind-the-scenes: key to effective interprofessional education Diane E. MacKenzie1*, Shelley Doucet2*, Susan Nasser3, Anne L. Godden-Webster4, Cynthia Andrews5 and George Kephart6 1
School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 2Department of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada, 3Community Sector Council of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada, 4Faculty of Health Professions, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, 5Department of Dentistry, and 6Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
Abstract
Keywords
A variety of stakeholders, including students, faculty, educational institutions and the broader health care and social service communities, work behind-the-scenes to support interprofessional education initiatives. While program designers are faced with multiple challenges associated with implementing and sustaining such programs, little has been written about how program designers practice the interprofessional competencies that are expected of students. This brief report describes the backstage collaboration underpinning the Dalhousie Health Mentors Program, a large and complex pre-licensure interprofessional experience connecting student teams with community volunteer mentors who have chronic conditions to learn about interprofessional collaboration and patient/client-centered care. Based on our experiences, we suggest that just as students are required to reflect on collaborative processes, interprofessional program designers should examine the ways in which they work together and take into consideration the impact this has on the delivery of the educational experience.
Competencies, health mentor program, interprofessional education, pre-qualifying/ pre-licensure, program designers
Introduction Interprofessional education (IPE) initiatives involve a variety of stakeholders including students, faculty, educational institutions and the broader health care and social service communities. Accordingly, program designers are faced with multiple challenges associated with implementing and sustaining such initiatives. Reeves, Goldman, and Oandasan (2007) identified faculty-focused and organization-focused factors as key factors in the planning and implementing of successful IPE initiatives. The purpose of this short report is to explore these key factors and apply the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) National Interprofessional Competency Framework (CIHC, 2010) to describe the behind-the-scenes collaborative processes that guided the development, implementation and ongoing evolution of the Dalhousie Health Mentors Program (DHMP). The DHMP, which has been described previously (Doucet, Andrews, Godden-Webster, Lauckner, & Nasser, 2012), is now in its fourth year and encompasses 16 health-related programs from multiple faculties and distributed learning sites. The DHMP was designed to specifically address three CIHC competency domains: interprofessional communication, patient/client/family/community-centered care, and team functioning (CIHC, 2010). However, in order construct a meaningful interprofessional student learning experience that also addressed faculty-focused *Diane E. MacKenzie and Shelley Doucet are co-first authors. Correspondence: Diane E. MacKenzie, School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
History Received 11 July 2013 Revised 22 November 2013 Accepted 31 January 2014 Published online 4 March 2014
and organization-focused factors (Reeves et al., 2007; Reeves, Tassone, Parker, Wagner, & Simmons, 2012) the program designers needed to apply all six CIHC interprofessional competency domains throughout the process (CIHC, 2010). Table I provides examples of how the six CIHC competencies were applied in the ‘‘behind-the-scenes’’ collaboration at both the faculty and organizational levels of the DHMP from 2010 until 2013.
Our script for success As others have noted, continued organizational support, enthusiasm and faculty leadership are critical to sustaining an IPE initiative, particularly one of this size (Fook et al., 2013; Reeves et al., 2012). The critical organizational elements that have been pivotal for our script for success include: organizational leadership (e.g. associate deans from three participating faculties cochaired the meetings) and financial support (e.g. cost-sharing for central coordinator position); a faculty development program provided by the coordinator and equal involvement of all academic units in program planning and implementation. Key elements at the faculty level include: motivated faculty with IPE experience; the skills and interest to assume collaborative leadership roles and willingness to extend trust and respect to others (e.g. to support a model of student supervision by a profession other than their own).
Discussion This report provides a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes collaborative process that IPE program designers employ to
382
D. E. MacKenzie et al.
J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 381–383
Table I. Linking the behind-the-scenes collaboration to the CIHC interprofessional competency domains. Competency domain
Key IPE faculty and organizational factors with examples of behind-the-scenes collaboration
Interprofessional communication
Faculty: The program coordinator facilitates faculty supervisor orientation and provides regular opportunities for discussion of experiences in one-on-one and interprofessional group settings. Active listening to each other’s ideas and concerns is always encouraged and facilitated. Organization: The DHMP committee meetings are inclusive of on-site and distant participants via videoconferencing that facilitates robust interpersonal communications among program planners who are not co-located. Co-chairs engage all members on-site and at a distance to ensure common understanding of all decisions. Faculty: Faculty supervisors do not directly collaborate with the mentors, but are attuned to mentor-centeredness through assignments rubrics and feedback from the program coordinator. Organization: The program coordinator collaborates closely with the mentors and is the main contact for mentor support. The coordinator recruits mentors, facilitates their orientation, and organizes the end of year mentor group debriefing and end of program celebration. Faculty: Faculty representatives from all participating programs are on the DHMP committee. Working groups for mentor recruitment, student orientation, student assessment, and research/evaluation are populated with faculty members from any participating program. Working groups operate from a position of trust and mutual respect so all perspectives are considered during the decision-making process. Strong ongoing collaborative relationships have formed within and across the working group structures. Organization: Working groups are open to any participating program faculty members. The DHMP program coordinator is a member of every working group and provides the link amongst committees as well as liaises with the co-chairs and DHMP committee Faculty: Through the process of designing the program and considerations for implementation and timing across programs, DHMP designers learn about each other’s profession, expertise, curricular structures, and accreditation requirements. Organization: In order to address the objectives within each participating program, program designers need to consider each professional program’s scope of practice, curriculum content and delivery (e.g. structure of faculties, regional campuses), and work collaboratively to organize the DHMP within these structures. Faculty: Collaborative decision-making principles are in place for all working groups and the DHMP committee (e.g. leadership shared among the faculty involved in the DHMP for formal gatherings, conference presentations and manuscript preparations). The number of faculty supervisors required from each program is proportional to the number students participating per program. Supervisors share accountability for student learning, assessment and evaluation regardless of professions represented on the assigned team(s). Organization: Leadership of the DHMP committee is shared, funded, and co-chaired by the associate deans from three overarching Faculties. A central coordinator provides the consistent and stable leadership for planning, implementing, and integrating all working group processes. Faculty: Equal representation of faculty from each professional program serves on the DHMP committee. The program coordinator often co-facilitates each meeting to provide a safe space for sharing ideas, transparency of the decision-making processes, and solution analysis. Organization: The DHMP committee work through several organizational conflicts, such as scheduling (e.g. trying to implement common meeting times), access to data management (guidelines for access to program evaluation data), and continuance of DHMP funding shared by three faculties.
Patient/client/family/community-centered care
Team functioning
Role clarification
Collaborative leadership
Interprofessional conflict resolution
overcome organizational and program implementation barriers. While the students did not directly observe the backstage collaborative role modeling, they interacted with the collaborative program elements throughout the DHMP designed to facilitate the development of interprofessional competencies. In the future, it would be valuable to explore students’ perspectives on the faculty interactions behind-the-scenes, including the impact this has on their learning experience. When examining the CIHC patient-centered care competency, we recognize that we are not adequately involving the health mentors on the program planning team, despite the fact that they are the primary educators for our students. Although verbal and written program evaluation feedback is gathered from our health mentors, further engagement in the behind-the scenes-planning, implementation, and evaluation should be considered.
From our experiences, we have learned the importance of faculty not only receiving education on how to facilitate interprofessional learning, but also on how to work collaboratively behind-the-scenes so that we can role model the interprofessional competencies we hope to instill in our students. Further research is needed to explore the application of interprofessional competencies to the planning and implementation processes underpinning IPE initiatives. Additionally, research could also explore the impact of collaboration amongst IPE program designers on learners, faculty, and the organizations involved.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the continued commitment and collaboration of the DHMP faculty and mentors, as well as the ongoing organizational support from the Deans of Dentistry, Health Professions and Medicine.
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.890923
Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors are responsible for the writing and content of this article.
References Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC). (2010). A national interprofessional competency framework. Retrieved from http://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_ Feb1210.pdf Doucet, S., Andrews, C., Godden-Webster, A., Lauckner, H., & Nasser, S. (2012). The Dalhousie Health Mentors Program: Introducing students
Collaboration behind-the-scenes
383
to collaborative patient-centred practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 336–338. Fook, J., D’Arcy, L., Norrie, C., Psoinos, M., Lamb, B., & Ross, F. (2013). Taking the long view: Exploring the development of interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27, 286–291. Reeves, S., Goldman, J., & Oandasan, I. (2007). Key factors in planning and implementing interprofessional education in health care settings. Journal of Allied Health, 36, 231–235. Reeves, S., Tassone, M., Parker, K., Wagner, S.J., & Simmons, B. (2012). Interprofessional education: An overview of key developments in the past three decades. Work, 41, 233–245.
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
Collaboration behind-the-scenes: key to effective interprofessional education Diane E. MacKenzie1*, Shelley Doucet2*, Susan Nasser3, Anne L. Godden-Webster4, Cynthia Andrews5 and George Kephart6 1
School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, 2Department of Nursing & Health Sciences, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, Canada, 3Community Sector Council of Nova Scotia, Halifax, Canada, 4Faculty of Health Professions, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada, 5Department of Dentistry, and 6Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
Abstract
Keywords
A variety of stakeholders, including students, faculty, educational institutions and the broader health care and social service communities, work behind-the-scenes to support interprofessional education initiatives. While program designers are faced with multiple challenges associated with implementing and sustaining such programs, little has been written about how program designers practice the interprofessional competencies that are expected of students. This brief report describes the backstage collaboration underpinning the Dalhousie Health Mentors Program, a large and complex pre-licensure interprofessional experience connecting student teams with community volunteer mentors who have chronic conditions to learn about interprofessional collaboration and patient/client-centered care. Based on our experiences, we suggest that just as students are required to reflect on collaborative processes, interprofessional program designers should examine the ways in which they work together and take into consideration the impact this has on the delivery of the educational experience.
Competencies, health mentor program, interprofessional education, pre-qualifying/ pre-licensure, program designers
Introduction Interprofessional education (IPE) initiatives involve a variety of stakeholders including students, faculty, educational institutions and the broader health care and social service communities. Accordingly, program designers are faced with multiple challenges associated with implementing and sustaining such initiatives. Reeves, Goldman, and Oandasan (2007) identified faculty-focused and organization-focused factors as key factors in the planning and implementing of successful IPE initiatives. The purpose of this short report is to explore these key factors and apply the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) National Interprofessional Competency Framework (CIHC, 2010) to describe the behind-the-scenes collaborative processes that guided the development, implementation and ongoing evolution of the Dalhousie Health Mentors Program (DHMP). The DHMP, which has been described previously (Doucet, Andrews, Godden-Webster, Lauckner, & Nasser, 2012), is now in its fourth year and encompasses 16 health-related programs from multiple faculties and distributed learning sites. The DHMP was designed to specifically address three CIHC competency domains: interprofessional communication, patient/client/family/community-centered care, and team functioning (CIHC, 2010). However, in order construct a meaningful interprofessional student learning experience that also addressed faculty-focused *Diane E. MacKenzie and Shelley Doucet are co-first authors. Correspondence: Diane E. MacKenzie, School of Occupational Therapy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]
History Received 11 July 2013 Revised 22 November 2013 Accepted 31 January 2014 Published online 4 March 2014
and organization-focused factors (Reeves et al., 2007; Reeves, Tassone, Parker, Wagner, & Simmons, 2012) the program designers needed to apply all six CIHC interprofessional competency domains throughout the process (CIHC, 2010). Table I provides examples of how the six CIHC competencies were applied in the ‘‘behind-the-scenes’’ collaboration at both the faculty and organizational levels of the DHMP from 2010 until 2013.
Our script for success As others have noted, continued organizational support, enthusiasm and faculty leadership are critical to sustaining an IPE initiative, particularly one of this size (Fook et al., 2013; Reeves et al., 2012). The critical organizational elements that have been pivotal for our script for success include: organizational leadership (e.g. associate deans from three participating faculties cochaired the meetings) and financial support (e.g. cost-sharing for central coordinator position); a faculty development program provided by the coordinator and equal involvement of all academic units in program planning and implementation. Key elements at the faculty level include: motivated faculty with IPE experience; the skills and interest to assume collaborative leadership roles and willingness to extend trust and respect to others (e.g. to support a model of student supervision by a profession other than their own).
Discussion This report provides a glimpse into the behind-the-scenes collaborative process that IPE program designers employ to
382
D. E. MacKenzie et al.
J Interprof Care, 2014; 28(4): 381–383
Table I. Linking the behind-the-scenes collaboration to the CIHC interprofessional competency domains. Competency domain
Key IPE faculty and organizational factors with examples of behind-the-scenes collaboration
Interprofessional communication
Faculty: The program coordinator facilitates faculty supervisor orientation and provides regular opportunities for discussion of experiences in one-on-one and interprofessional group settings. Active listening to each other’s ideas and concerns is always encouraged and facilitated. Organization: The DHMP committee meetings are inclusive of on-site and distant participants via videoconferencing that facilitates robust interpersonal communications among program planners who are not co-located. Co-chairs engage all members on-site and at a distance to ensure common understanding of all decisions. Faculty: Faculty supervisors do not directly collaborate with the mentors, but are attuned to mentor-centeredness through assignments rubrics and feedback from the program coordinator. Organization: The program coordinator collaborates closely with the mentors and is the main contact for mentor support. The coordinator recruits mentors, facilitates their orientation, and organizes the end of year mentor group debriefing and end of program celebration. Faculty: Faculty representatives from all participating programs are on the DHMP committee. Working groups for mentor recruitment, student orientation, student assessment, and research/evaluation are populated with faculty members from any participating program. Working groups operate from a position of trust and mutual respect so all perspectives are considered during the decision-making process. Strong ongoing collaborative relationships have formed within and across the working group structures. Organization: Working groups are open to any participating program faculty members. The DHMP program coordinator is a member of every working group and provides the link amongst committees as well as liaises with the co-chairs and DHMP committee Faculty: Through the process of designing the program and considerations for implementation and timing across programs, DHMP designers learn about each other’s profession, expertise, curricular structures, and accreditation requirements. Organization: In order to address the objectives within each participating program, program designers need to consider each professional program’s scope of practice, curriculum content and delivery (e.g. structure of faculties, regional campuses), and work collaboratively to organize the DHMP within these structures. Faculty: Collaborative decision-making principles are in place for all working groups and the DHMP committee (e.g. leadership shared among the faculty involved in the DHMP for formal gatherings, conference presentations and manuscript preparations). The number of faculty supervisors required from each program is proportional to the number students participating per program. Supervisors share accountability for student learning, assessment and evaluation regardless of professions represented on the assigned team(s). Organization: Leadership of the DHMP committee is shared, funded, and co-chaired by the associate deans from three overarching Faculties. A central coordinator provides the consistent and stable leadership for planning, implementing, and integrating all working group processes. Faculty: Equal representation of faculty from each professional program serves on the DHMP committee. The program coordinator often co-facilitates each meeting to provide a safe space for sharing ideas, transparency of the decision-making processes, and solution analysis. Organization: The DHMP committee work through several organizational conflicts, such as scheduling (e.g. trying to implement common meeting times), access to data management (guidelines for access to program evaluation data), and continuance of DHMP funding shared by three faculties.
Patient/client/family/community-centered care
Team functioning
Role clarification
Collaborative leadership
Interprofessional conflict resolution
overcome organizational and program implementation barriers. While the students did not directly observe the backstage collaborative role modeling, they interacted with the collaborative program elements throughout the DHMP designed to facilitate the development of interprofessional competencies. In the future, it would be valuable to explore students’ perspectives on the faculty interactions behind-the-scenes, including the impact this has on their learning experience. When examining the CIHC patient-centered care competency, we recognize that we are not adequately involving the health mentors on the program planning team, despite the fact that they are the primary educators for our students. Although verbal and written program evaluation feedback is gathered from our health mentors, further engagement in the behind-the scenes-planning, implementation, and evaluation should be considered.
From our experiences, we have learned the importance of faculty not only receiving education on how to facilitate interprofessional learning, but also on how to work collaboratively behind-the-scenes so that we can role model the interprofessional competencies we hope to instill in our students. Further research is needed to explore the application of interprofessional competencies to the planning and implementation processes underpinning IPE initiatives. Additionally, research could also explore the impact of collaboration amongst IPE program designers on learners, faculty, and the organizations involved.
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the continued commitment and collaboration of the DHMP faculty and mentors, as well as the ongoing organizational support from the Deans of Dentistry, Health Professions and Medicine.
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.890923
Declaration of interest The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors are responsible for the writing and content of this article.
References Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC). (2010). A national interprofessional competency framework. Retrieved from http://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_ Feb1210.pdf Doucet, S., Andrews, C., Godden-Webster, A., Lauckner, H., & Nasser, S. (2012). The Dalhousie Health Mentors Program: Introducing students
Collaboration behind-the-scenes
383
to collaborative patient-centred practice. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 26, 336–338. Fook, J., D’Arcy, L., Norrie, C., Psoinos, M., Lamb, B., & Ross, F. (2013). Taking the long view: Exploring the development of interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 27, 286–291. Reeves, S., Goldman, J., & Oandasan, I. (2007). Key factors in planning and implementing interprofessional education in health care settings. Journal of Allied Health, 36, 231–235. Reeves, S., Tassone, M., Parker, K., Wagner, S.J., & Simmons, B. (2012). Interprofessional education: An overview of key developments in the past three decades. Work, 41, 233–245.
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.
