Transcript Assessing effective interprofessional teamwork
Assessing Effective Interprofessional Teamwork
Professor Keith Stevenson, School of Health and Life Sciences Glasgow Caledonian University Scotland UK
Acknowledgement to Staff
• • • • • • • • • • • 2011-12 Chris Seenan Wendy Smith Gordon Morlan Seb Chastin Catriona Khamisha Stephen Plunkett Anna Iveson Ben Stansfield Gordon Burrow Louise Boyle Chris Seenan Seb Chastin Gill Constable Debbie Taylor Pei Ling Choo Ben Stansfield Morag Campbell John Carruthers Trevor Grant Maureen McKane 2012-13 Nicky Andrew Ima Jackson Pauline Hamiltion Tom McAlear Liz Hastie Lesley Price Ron Johansen John Smith(EdTech)
Definition
Interprofessional Education takes place on those “occasions where two or more professions learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care” (Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education [CAIPE], (2002).
Statutory Requirement
RCN (2007) on IPE
“ Effective collaboration in professional practice is necessary to underpin a patient-centred flexible health and social care service with staff working across social boundaries, in flatter non-hierarchical structures”.
Standards for Pre Reg. Nursing Education (NMC 2010)
R5.7 Programme providers must ensure that students have the opportunity to learn with, and from, other health and social care professionals. (NMC 2010 p75)
So...
• How are health professionals supposed to work together if they don’t learn together?
• The GCU School of Health IPE framework was devised to address that issue
IPE Framework U/G 2010/11
Level 1 Foundations of Health and Soc Care Practice 20 Credits Level 1 Psych and Soc for Health and Social Care ------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Credits Level 2 Research Methods (On Line) --------------------------------------------------------------- Level 3 Investigating Effective Practice (On Line) 20 Credits 20 Credits ------------------------------------------------------------- Level 4 Organisations Policy and Prof Practice Level 4 Honours Project ------------------------------------------------------------- 20 Credits 40 Credits
IPE L1 delivered to 10 Professional Disciplines (800 students per year cohort) Orthotics +Prosthetics and SP+L Therapy Nurse (BN) Nurse (BAHNS) Dental nurses Radiotherapy and Diag Imag Orthoptics
IPE Framework
Operting Dept Practice Physiotherapy Ambulance and Paramedic Podiatry Social Work Occupational Therapy
IPE Competencies
• • • • • • • problem-solving, decision-making, respect, communication, shared knowledge and skills, patient/client -centred practice, working collaboratively as a team.
Measuring IPE Competence
Learning outcome : Knows the principles of carrying out research in Health and Social Care Assessment: MCQ Learning Outcome: Working Effectively in online Groups How do we reward working effectively in an online group?
WebPA
• • WebPA is an award winning online peer assessment tool developed over 15 years by University of Hull and Loughborough University More information can be found at: http://www.webpa.ac.uk
Group Assessment with Peer Assessment (PA):
• Normally, students all receive the same grade, regardless of input • With PA, group grade is proportionally shared between group members
The PA Grids
Each group member rates each other group member on 4 criteria: 1. Contribution to discussion 2. Constructive input 3. Input to organising the group 4. Overall contribution to task 0-1-2-3-4 0-1-2-3-4 0-1-2-3-4 0-1-2-3-4 WebPA then combines the rankings and produces a weighted factor for each student which reflects their degree of input to the task
Group Member No. Number in Group MF Calc Factor Normalised
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5 Total PA Total Group Member No. PA Factor Group Grade Qu. 1 1
4 3 4 1.25
1
0.33
0.19
0.00
0.29
0.10
0.91
1.13
4 1 5
1
1.03
60
Group Member No. 1 2
1 3 4 1.25
2
0.08
0.19
0.00
0.14
0.20
0.61
0.77
2 2 5
2
0.75
60
2
4 1.25
3
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.36
0.45
1 1 5
3
0.60
60
3 3
0 3
4
4 4 4 1.25
4
0.33
0.25
0.00
0.29
0.20
1.07
1.34
4 2 5
4
1.26
60
4
4 1.25
5
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.21
0.40
1.05
1.31
3 4 5
5
1.36
60
5 5
3 3
Qu. 2 1
4 3
2
1 3
3
1 3
4
3 4 4 1.25
1
0.31
0.19
0.00
0.23
0.10
0.83
1.03
3 1 5 4 1.25
2
0.08
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.20
0.54
0.68
1 2 5 4 1.25
3
0.08
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.44
0.55
1 1 5 4 1.25
4
0.23
0.25
0.00
0.31
0.20
0.99
1.24
4 2 5 4 1.25
5
0.31
0.19
0.00
0.31
0.40
1.20
1.50
4 4 5
5
4 3
Qu. 3 1
4 3
2
1 3
3
3 3
4
4 4
5
4 3
Qu.4
1
4 3
2
3 3
3
1 3
4
4 4 4 1.25
1
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.27
0.10
0.80
1.01
4 1 5 4 1.25
2
0.06
0.19
0.00
0.07
0.20
0.52
0.65
1 2 5 4 1.25
3
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.10
0.61
0.76
2 1 5 4 1.25
4
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.27
0.20
0.97
1.21
4 2 5 4 1.25
5
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.27
0.40
1.10
1.38
4 4 5 4 1.25
1
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.23
0.10
0.77
0.96
3 1 5 4 1.25
2
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.15
0.20
0.73
0.91
2 2 5 4 1.25
3
0.06
0.19
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.50
0.63
2 1 5 4 1.25
4
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.31
0.20
1.01
1.26
4 2 5 4 1.25
5
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.15
0.40
0.99
1.24
2 4 5
5
4 3
PA Adjusted Grade 10% 10% Deduction? Final (%)
62 45 36 76 82 62 6 45 5 32 4 1 76 8 82 8
Evaluation:
• Module Feedback Questionnaire: – 98 completed (approx. 30% response) – Two questions related to PA
The online peer assessment process made sure those that did not contribute to group presentations were penalised
13% 12% 15% 16% 44% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
The peer assessment process benefited those that worked effectively and communicated effectively in preparing answers to the group tasks
9% 11% 28% 42% 10% Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree
What did students say?
• • • “I found the peer assessment very beneficial as it was necessary when there were people in the group that weren't very active about getting work done” “felt that the peer assessment was good in that it penalised the group members who did not contribute” “the peer assessment was obviously put in place to give credit to those who deserve it and take it away from those who don't deserve it”
What do staff say?
• • • • In 35 years of teaching in HE I have never seen such a shift in student behaviour as brought about by Web PA Much more engagement than last year Marking and providing feedback in 3 days was stressful Marking and getting group task feedback back to students was time-consuming
Research Methods 20012-13
• • • • • • • 776 students registered to the course 19 staff online tutor support 1 tutor per 40 students (approx) 40 students divided (8 x 5 Interprof Task Groups) 5 x Bi-Weekly Interprofessional Tasks 5 opportunities to be group Lead Timetabled opportunity to meet in task groups Weds 9-12
Importance of Feedback
• • • • Tasks organised by groups and submitted 5.00pm Sunday Peer Assessment open Sunday- Tuesday 5.00pm
Task marked and returned by Thursday 5.00pm
Engagement with process (98% of students submitted Peer Assessments Task 1)
Value of Process
• • • • Students are encouraged to engage Students who do not engage are identified at week 2 Students are contacted and encouraged to engage in task 2 Students who do not engage are identified at week 4.
Opportunity to Improve
• • • • 13 students penalised <30% Task 1 7 students penalised <30% Task 2 7 students penalised <30% Task 3 4 students penalised <30% Task 4 From a total of 776 students nearly 99% have been encouraged to engage and to achieve.
This has been addressed through continuous electronic feedback and monitoring and discussion.
And finally for the cat lovers...
Teams can sometimes help traditional enemies work together for a common goal .
Contact Details
Professor Keith Stevenson Head of Interprofessional Education School of Health and Life Sciences Glasgow Caledonian University E mail: [email protected]
Tel: 0141 331 8833 Mob: 0758 358 2799