Developing Interprofessional Education in health and social care ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

asic sciences, clinical skills, ethics and professionalism (Mitchell et al., 2004),promising economies of scale and optimum use of faculty, accommodation andother resources, off-setting the relative cost of the interactive learning. Interactivelearning was facilitated to enable students from the different professions toappreciate each other‟s roles and responsibilities with the aid of case studies,simulation exercises, enquiry based/problem based learning and practice learning(Ponzer et al., 2004) as they surmounted misunderstandings and honed theircommunication and collaborative skills.Barrett and her colleagues were the first to publish their response to thegovernment‟s blueprint. They recalled the logistical, curricular and operationalchallenges encountered when introducing IPE across programmes for ten healthand social care professions at the University of the West of England (Barrett,Greenwood & Ross, 2003).They saw the following as essential: To preserve and, where possible, enhance the identity of each profession To build competence and confidence for interprofessional and interagencycollaboration To resolve differences in structure and academic levelThe outcome was: Discrete pathway modules for each professional group A variety of shared learning modules A compulsory interprofessional strand for all the studentsAlthough interprofessional strands were not always compulsory for all studentgroups this broad structure was reflected in much subsequent IPE. Interprofessionallearning was integrated sometimes, but not always, into the discrete professionalpathway modules. In addition, practice placements created opportunities tocomplement pre-determined scenarios in the classroom with real-life cases. Butworking across more than one site and organising intakes often totalling 700 ormore into interprofessional groups without one group outbalancing the others waschallenging.O‟Halloran and her colleagues in the New Generation Project distinguished between„common learning‟ (as an umbrella term), „learning in common‟ (where studentslearnt the same subjects but in separate groups) and interprofessional learning (asdefined by CAIPE where students from the different professions learnt togetherinteractively). The interprofessional learning included experiences outside students‟professional field, distinguishing between guided discovery learning andcollaborative learning (within and between professions) (O‟Halloran, Hean,Humphris & Macleod-Clark, 2006).Group exercises integrated these three learning approaches: Providing students with a productive learning experience Generating genuine interdependence Fostering differentiation and mutual intergroup differentiation Allowing equal contributions20
Students were expected to achieve the learning outcomes through exposure tolearning experiences involving their fellows from other professional groups andconstructing learning conditions to support collaboration and learning. This curricularprocess was underpinned by a model of learning and teaching known as FacilitatedCollaborative Interprofessional Learning (FCIL) which combined three pedagogies:guided discovery learning, collaborative learning and interprofessional learning(Humphris & McLeod Clark, 2007).Common learning and interactive learning both had their merits: the former offeringeconomy of scale and shared understanding of basic knowledge across curricula;the latter providing experiential opportunities for discussion about roles,responsibilities and patient care. Good team working for future practitionersdepends on all these elements.Learning methodsNumerous learning methods were introduced into IPE schemes, some face to face;others mediated by technology (see chapter 5). Interactive methods includeddiscussion, debates, problem-based and case-based learning and small group work.Common learning included lectures and large group seminars. Placements providedopportunities to practice in interprofessional student teams as well as service audit,shadowing members of other professions, observing and participating in teammeetings and interviews with service users and carers. Opting for only one methodwould have been needlessly constraining failing to respond to the range anddiversity of students‟ needs and learning styles. Problem based learning (PBL)featured less in UK IPE than might have been expected given its commendation bythe WHO as the cornerstone for interprofessional learning (WHO, 1988). TheUniversity of Salford was alone in modelling its approach explicitly on the advicefrom WHO drawing on pioneering work in Adelaide (Australia) and Linkoping(Sweden) (Davidson & Lucas, 1995) although others, such as St George‟sUniversity of London and the University of the West of England, also introducedsimilar enquiry and problem based methods.The range of methods introduced into IPE exemplified the “new pedagogy” drawingon constructivist theory (Cullen et al., 2002), grounded in expository, interactive,conversational and experiential practice-based methods where the learners activelyconstruct knowledge for themselves from an array of experiences rather thanfocusing on knowledge-based subject matter transferred from the teacher to thetaught (Bruner, 1966). The adoption of this constructivist epistemology and adultlearning principles led to a shift in interprofessional teaching and learning towardsmore experiential (Kolb, 1984) and more reflective (Schön 1987) styles wherelearning was “situated” within “communities of practice” (Lave & Wenger, 1991;Wenger, 1998) informed by role-modelling theory where students identified withexamples of positive practice (Bandura, 1986). Students were adult learners(Knowles 1973, 1985) responsible not only for their own learning but also that ofothers as a collective and collaborative responsibility (Barr, 2002; Hammick et al.,2007; Oandasan & Reeves, 2005).The application of constructivist theories to interprofessional learning may havebeen more comfortable for students following more humanistic professional courses,which allowed more room for difference and debate, than for those following morescientific professional courses with more emphasis on handing down evidencebasedknowledge. Nor was it clear for some students how such learning would21
Page 4: ForewordsThis report is an importan
Page 7: PrefaceThe turn of the Century was
Page 13 and 14: 2. Promoting Interprofessional Educ
Page 15: capabilities were published. The Sh
Page 18: develop sustainable abilities appro
Page 21: 4. Developing teaching and learning
Page 25 and 26: Assessing learningIt became clear o
Page 27 and 28: Assessment and Learning in Practice
Page 29 and 30: different professions at Coventry U
Page 31 and 32: show how students created new inter
Page 33 and 34: The allied health professionsStanda
Page 35 and 36: Information for prospective student
Page 37 and 38: as well as quantitative - for the e
Page 39 and 40: “Interprofessional learning/educa
Page 41 and 42: CAIPE convened two-day „split‟
Page 43 and 44: 9. Taking stockThe widespread suppo
Page 45 and 46: References:Anderson, E.S, Cox, D. &
Page 50 and 51: Interprofessional Education Collabo
Page 52 and 53: Pearson, P., Ashcroft, D., and Buck
Page 54 and 55: determinants of population health V
Page 56 and 57: B. A bibliographyBooks and papers f
Page 58: Wilcock, P., Campion-Smith, C. & El

Developing Interprofessional Education in health and social care ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?