Transcript Slide 1

Health-care professionals’ shared and
divergent perspectives on interprofessional
practice and interprofessional education
Redden, K. C., Chin, K., Birlean, C., Steinert, Y., Shore, B. M., & Purden, M.
The McGill Educational Initiative on Interprofessional
Collaboration: Partnership for Patient and Family
Centered Practice
Faculty of Medicine
McGill University
Introduction
 The McGill Group:
 Understand and facilitate IPP and IPE in hospital
and university settings.
 Evaluation Task Force:
 Document the group’s development and activities.
 Goal of Current Study:
 Describe members’ perspectives on IPP and IPE.
Research Questions
 What are various health-care professionals’
personal conceptions of IPP and IPE?
 What are the perceived benefits and
challenges to IPP and IPE?
 How do professionals see the relationship
between IPP and IPE?
Methods
 Participants
 N = 9: 4 nurses, 2 doctors, 1 physical therapist,
1 occupational therapist, 1 psychologist
 Researcher-developed open-ended interview
 Data Analysis and Interpretation
 Open & Axial Coding (Strauss & Corbin, 1998)
 Saturation and 100% agreement on emerging patterns
 Results compared to existing models in literature
Results
 Definition of IPP
 Associated Benefits and Challenges
 Definition of IPE
 Associated Benefits and Challenges
 Relationship between IPP and IPE
Interpretations
 Shared Conceptions:
 Benefits and Challenges of IPP and IPE
 Definitions of IPE
 Divergent Conceptions:
 Relationship between IPP and IPE
 Definition of IPP:
 Environment
 Hierarchy
 Timing of exposure to IPE
 Reflection of D’Amour & Oandasan’s (2005) model
Implications
 Generated discussion among members of the
team
 Baseline data for a longitudinal study focused
on this group’s development over the life of this
project
Thank You
All Together Better Health
The McGill Educational Initiative on
Interprofessional Collaboration:
Partnerships for Family-Centered Practice
Health Canada