Search

Early curricular exposure to interprofessional education (IPE) is intended to acclimatize health professional trainees to shared-care in the practice settings they will ultimately join. However, IPE activities typically reside outside actual organizational and social systems in which interprofessional care is delivered. We aimed to explore how pharmacist trainees experience collaborator and communicator competency roles during team-based workplace-based learning. Participants maintained written diaries reflecting on interprofessional collaboration and communication during an eight-week hospital clerkship. Diary entries and transcripts from semi-structured follow-up interviews were analyzed from the social constructivist perspective using reflective thematic analysis. Participant accounts of on-ward activities represented most collaborator and communicator roles outlined in pharmacy and interprofessional competency frameworks, but were predominantly between the pharmacist trainee and physicians. Pharmacist trainees did not routinely engage with other health professions on a daily basis. Additionally, reported encounters with other team members were typically information exchanges and not episodes of authentic interdependent or shared care. Interactions were almost completely devoid of perceived interpersonal or role conflict. These findings offer insight into how pharmacist trainees perceive and develop competencies for team-based care. Further work is required to understand how such limited scope of interprofessional communication and collaboration might ultimately impair quality patient care.

Collaborations between groups of professionals often have a long history, which can still influence contemporary practice. If problems in the collaboration occur, the search for effective interventions for these problems may be informed by analysing current practice as well as the historical development of the collaboration. The study focused on the collaboration between obstetricians and midwives in the Netherlands. We performed a secondary analysis of questionnaire data focusing on midwives evaluating the collaborative performance of obstetricians in the Netherlands. Template analysis was used to analyse the questionnaires. The initial template was based on a model for interprofessional collaboration. As a final step, we reflected on the results in light of the historical development of the collaboration. The midwives experienced a power imbalance and a lack of trust and mutual acquaintanceship in their collaboration with obstetricians. They also reported a need for interprofessional governance and formalization. Most of these reported problems in the collaboration have their origin in the historical development of both professions and in the development of the collaboration between both professional groups. Combining an exploration of contemporary interprofessional practice with a historical perspective on interprofessional collaboration is fruitful for understanding problems in collaboration between professional groups, and provides guidance for improving collaboration.

Collaboration between different groups of health care professionals is often rooted in a long and often difficult history. This history can exert a strong influence on how professionals collaborate and historical tensions can contribute to problems in contemporary practice. However, literature about interprofessional collaboration often ignores the historical underpinnings of collaboration. In this paper, the historical development of interprofessional collaboration between obstetricians and midwives within the setting of Dutch obstetrical care is explored using a review of Dutch and English literature for documents explicitly or implicitly describing the historical development of this collaboration. This literature delineates the establishment of professional boundaries and the formalization of the collaboration between the two professions. It also details the history of physician domination over the midwives both in midwifery practice and education and the relatively recent reversal of this situation. Moreover, the shift in collaborative partner from general practitioner to obstetrician and its effect on collaboration is examined. Insight into the historical foundations of Dutch maternity care collaboration may allow us to understand the origins, and thus formulate possible solutions, for contemporary problems within this collaboration.

Processes involved in the regulation of learning have been researched for decades, because of its impact on academic and workplace performance. In fact, self‐regulated learning is the focus of countless studies in health professions education and higher education in general. While we will always need competent individuals who are able to regulate their own learning, developments in healthcare require a shift from a focus on the individual to the collective: collaboration within and between healthcare teams is at the heart of high‐quality patient care. Concepts of collaborative learning and collective competence challenge commonly held conceptualisations of regulatory learning and call for a focus on the social embeddedness of regulatory learning and processes regulating the learning of the collective. Therefore, this article questions the alignment of current conceptualisations of regulation of learning with demands for collaboration in current healthcare. We explore different conceptualisations of regulation of learning (self‐, co‐, and socially shared regulation of learning), and elaborate on how the integration of these conceptualisations adds to our understanding of regulatory learning in healthcare settings. Building on these insights, we furthermore suggest ways forward for research and educational practice. Bransen et al. explore the concept of 'self' to argue that the health professions need to shift from striving to optimize self‐regulation to understanding how to effectively regulate across self‐, co‐, and shared‐regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Workplace-based assessment may be further optimized by drawing upon the perspectives of multiple assessors, including those outside the trainee's discipline. Interprofessional competencies like communication and collaboration are often considered suitable for team input. We sought to characterize multidisciplinary expectations of communicator and collaborator competency roles. We adopted a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore perspectives of multidisciplinary team members on a clinical teaching unit. In semi-structured interviews, participants described expectations for competent collaboration and communication of trainees outside their own discipline. Data were analyzed to identify recurring themes, underlying concepts and their interactions using constant comparison. Three main underlying perspectives influenced interprofessional characterization of competent communication and collaboration: (1) general expectations of best practice; (2) specific expectations of supportive practice; and (3) perceived commitment to teaching practice. However, participants seemingly judged trainees outside their discipline according to how competencies were exercised to advance their own professional patient care decision-making, with minimal attention to the trainee's specific skillset demonstrated. While team members expressed commitment to supporting interprofessional competency development of trainees outside their discipline, service-oriented judgement of performance loomed large. The potential impact on the credibility of multidisciplinary sources for workplace-based assessment requires consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We expect physicians to be lifelong learners. Participation in clinical practice is an important potential source of that learning. To support physicians in this process, a better understanding of how they learn in clinical practice is necessary. This study investigates how physicians recognise and use informal feedback from interactions with patients in outpatient settings as learning cues to adjust their communication behaviours in daily practice. Methods: To understand physicians' use of informal feedback, we combined non‐participant observations with semi‐structured interviews. We enrolled 10 respiratory physicians and observed 100 physician‐patient interactions at two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Data collection and analysis were performed iteratively according to the principles of constructivist grounded theory. Results: Following stages of open, axial and selective coding, we were able to conceptualise how physicians use cues to reflect on and adjust their communication. In addition to vast variations within and across patient encounters, we observed recurring adjustments in physicians' communication behaviours in response to specific informal feedback cues. Physicians recognised and used these cues to self‐monitor communication performance. They had established 'communication repertoires' based on multiple patient interactions, which many saw as learning opportunities contributing to the development of expertise. Our findings, however, show differences in physicians' individual levels of sensitivity in recognising and using learning opportunities in daily practice, which were further influenced by contextual, personal and interpersonal factors. Whereas some described themselves as having little inclination to change, others used critical incidents to fine‐tune their communication repertoires, and yet others constantly reshaped them, seeking learning opportunities in their daily work. Conclusions: There is large variation in how physicians use learning cues from daily practice. To enhance learning in and from daily practice, we propose turning workplace learning into a collaborative effort with the aim of increasing awareness and the use of informal performance‐relevant feedback. Sehlbach et al. use observations and interviews to examine how physicians use informal feedback for professional development, highlighting how workplace learning could be improved through collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A new form of internationalization has been trending upward in the medical education realm: crossborder medical curriculum partnerships established to deliver the same, or adapted, curriculum to groups of geographically separated students. This study aims to investigate crossborder medical curriculum partnerships by exploring the experiences of teachers at the recipient institution who have a key role in delivering the program. Methods: From four pioneering recipient medical schools, 24 teachers participated in a Q-sort study. Each participant rank-ordered 42 statements about teaching in a crossborder medical curriculum on a scale from −5 (indicating strong disagreement) to +5 (indicating strong agreement). The authors conducted a "by-person" factor analysis to uncover distinct patterns in the ranking of statements, using the statistical results and participants' comments about their Q sorts to interpret these patterns and translate them into distinct viewpoints. Results: Three viewpoints emerged, reflecting: (1) a feeling of connectedness with the partner institution, trust in the quality of the curriculum, and appreciation of interinstitutional relationships; (2) the partnership's attractiveness because of the career opportunities it offers; and (3) concerns over the quality of graduates because of doubts about the appropriateness of the didactic model and insufficient attention to local healthcare needs, and over the practical feasibility of such partnerships. Conclusions: The three viewpoints identified revealed a pallet of views on how host teachers might experience their work. It shows the heterogeneous features of this group and seems to counterbalance reports that they are feeling "deprived" from their role as teacher. Two viewpoints featured an appreciation of interinstitutional relationships and of the partnership, especially when perceiving a degree of autonomy. Partners can capitalize on all different viewpoints by deploying procedure and policies to raise the quality of education delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Worldwide, medical schools have entered into crossborder curriculum partnerships (CCPs) to provide equivalent curricula and learning experiences to groups of geographically separated students. Paradoxically, this process also involvesadaptationof curricula to suit local contexts. This study has focused on challenges faced by medical Crossborder curriculum programme directors and strategies they employed to overcome these. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study on six CCPs using document analysis and semi-structured interviews with 13 programme directors from 12 medical schools. Interview transcripts were coded iteratively, followed by cross-case analysis. Results: The challenges faced by CCP programme directors are four-fold, springing from differences in health care systems, legislation and political interference, teaching and learning environments, and partnership. Deliberate strategies, such as intensifying interactions between partners in all academic echelons, can help to overcome these. Partnerships vary in their setup and collaboration strategy. Conclusion: Medical CCPs are challenging though seem feasible. Partnerships with more solid integration of academic operations appear robust in terms of ownership and provide, besides financial, also academic advantages to both institutions. However, more research is needed on the long-term effects on quality of graduates and impact on the host health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite acknowledgement that the Canadian Medical Educational Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS) framework covers the relevant competencies of physicians, many educators and medical professionals struggle to translate the CanMEDS roles into comprehensive training programmes for specific specialties. Aim: To gain insight into the applicability of the CanMEDS framework to guide the design of educational programmes for specific specialties by exploring stakeholders' perceptions of specialty specific competencies and examining differences between those competencies and the CanMEDS framework. Methods: This case study is a sequel to a study among ObsGyn specialists. It explores the perspectives of patients, midwives, nurses, general practitioners, and hospital boards on gynaecological competencies and compares these with the CanMEDS framework. Results: Clinical expertise, reflective practice, collaboration, a holistic view, and involvement in practice management were perceived to be important competencies for gynaecological practice. Although all the competencies were covered by the CanMEDS framework, there were some mismatches between stakeholders' perceptions of the importance of some competencies and their position in the framework. Conclusion: The CanMEDS framework appears to offer relevant building blocks for specialty specific postgraduate training, which should be combined with the results of an exploration of specialty specific competencies to arrive at a postgraduate curriculum that is in alignment with professional practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the importance of health professions education in producing professionals who will provide the best health care to the population. Also cited are the need to create regulations and positive attitudes benefiting international travel, global meetings, and global health, as well as the need for elected officials to ensure that international health educational activities and collaborations should be freely allowed.