8,702
Views
29
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Toward interprofessional learning and education: Mapping common outcomes for prequalifying healthcare professional programs in the United Kingdom

, , , , , & show all

Abstract

Introduction: Interprofessional education (IPE) continues to be a key component in prequalifying health professional education, with calls for regulators to publish a joint statement regarding IPE outcomes. To date, the regulatory documents for healthcare education in the United Kingdom have not been examined for common learning outcomes; information that could be used to inform such a statement and to identify opportunities for interprofessional learning.

Methods: A mapping of the outcomes/standards required by five, UK, health profession regulatory bodies was undertaken. This involved the identification of common outcomes, a keyword search and classification of common outcomes/standards; presented as themes and subthemes.

Results: Seven themes were identified: knowledge for practice, skills for practice, ethical approach, professionalism, continuing professional development (CPD), patient-centered approach and teamworking skills, representing 22 subthemes. Each subtheme links back to the outcomes/standards in the regulatory documents.

Conclusions: This study identifies the key areas of overlap in outcomes/standards expected of selected healthcare graduates in the United Kingdom. The mapping provides a framework for informing prequalifying IPE curricula, for example, identifying possible foci for interprofessional education outcomes and associated learning opportunities. It allows reference back to the standards set by regulatory bodies, a requirement for all institutions involved in health profession education.

Introduction

Healthcare is under increasing pressure, with a recent National Health Service (NHS) publication highlighting the challenge of increasing numbers of people having long-term conditions and an ageing population set against a backdrop of the rising costs of care, financial constraints and greater expectations of the healthcare system (NHS England Citation2013) . Interprofessional education (IPE) has been defined as two or more professions “learning with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and quality of care” (Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) Citation2002) and continues to be championed by governments, healthcare regulators and academic institutions as a key component in the education of healthcare professionals with the view that enhancing IPE will improve collaborative interprofessional practice in the workplace.

In the USA, IPE has been highlighted as one approach to help achieve the “triple aim” of “improving the experience of care, improving the health of the population and reducing per capita healthcare costs” (Berwick et al. Citation2008; Brandt et al. Citation2014; Earnest & Brandt Citation2014). In Australia, an extensive exercise was undertaken to develop recommendations for IPE and interprofessional practice based on a national approach to IPE curriculum development linked to workforce planning and capacity building using a “four dimensional model of curriculum development” framework (Health Workforce Australia Citation2013). The WHO states that “interprofessional collaboration in education and practice … will play an important role in mitigating the global health workforce crisis” (World Health Organization Citation2010, p. 7). The high priority placed by policy makers on IPE was recognized in a systematic review of IPE programs (Hammick et al. Citation2007) and although a Cochrane review concluded that “it is not possible to draw generalizable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness” (Reeves et al. Citation2013, p. 2), there is growing evidence of positive changes in learners’ attitudes toward others and collaborative skills (Reeves et al. Citation2016) and smaller studies suggest that IPE may benefit patient care (Laurant et al. Citation2010).

With patient care progressively being provided by healthcare teams, often working in complex and challenging environments, there is an increasing interest in IPE as a means to ensuring healthcare professionals are not only aware of their own specific role(s), but more importantly they can work to each other’s professional strengths and skills. In addition to this, the roles of some professions, such as nursing and pharmacy, are extending into areas, such as prescribing and case management, in order to address changing demographics and patterns of illness and this requires an increasingly collaborative model of practice that is underpinned by shared values (Laurant et al. Citation2010; The Scottish Government Citation2013). Reflecting this, the learning outcomes or competencies associated with IPE are wide ranging, for example, having knowledge of different roles and responsibilities of health professionals, being able to communicate effectively with other professionals and working cooperatively in the best interests of the patient (Thistlethwaite & Moran Citation2010, p. 511). What is less understood is which outcomes are best achieved through IPE versus those that can be achieved through professional-specific education (Reeves et al. Citation2013). The formulation of (learning) outcomes as part of developing IPE is identified as a key component of curriculum design (CAIPE Citation2016). As part of advancing understanding about which outcomes are best achieved through different professionals coming together to learn, it is valuable to understand the nature and extent of the overlap of profession specific, mandated program outcomes.

In 1993, in the United Kingdom, Tomorrow’s Doctors was published by the General Medical Council (GMC Citation1993), which described the requirements that must be satisfied before a newly qualified doctor could assume preregistration house officer responsibilities (GMC Citation1993). The subsequent edition of Tomorrow’s Doctors (GMC Citation2002) was developed with an outcomes based approach to reflect advances in educational theory. Over the last two decades, the General Dental Council (GDC) and General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) have produced outcomes based documents, and the Nursing Midwifery Council (NMC) and Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC) “standards”, for graduates (General Dental Council Citation2011; Nursing and Midwifery Council Citation2010; General Pharmaceutical Council Citation2013; Health and Care Professions Council Citation2013). It is worth noting that there are some differences between the professions regarding: the point of registration; whether the regulatory documents refer to “standards” or “outcomes”; and the terminology used ().

Table 1. Regulatory bodies of health and care professions in the United Kingdom and details regarding documents referring to undergraduate education and training.

These regulatory documents highlight the need to develop interprofessional skills such as communication and teamworking (Barr & Norrie Citation2010). A review by Barr and Norrie (Citation2010) examined the regulatory documents for medicine, nursing, social care and the health and care professionals and compared the requirements for interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Areas for collaborative practice included joint planning of treatment, communication and respect. However, they found a lack of consistency in terminology, outcomes or approaches to IPE within the documents. In a recent review, the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) recommended that regulators “agree and publish a joint statement regarding the outcomes they require from students on completion of pre-qualifying IPE in health and social care” (Barr et al. Citation2014, p.6). CAIPE have also highlighted the importance of considering prequalifying IPE as the foundation for a lifetime of “continuing interprofessional development” (Barr & Low Citation2012). Certainly, IPE in the postgraduate setting has been associated with improved teamworking in the emergency department, in operating rooms and in the care of patients who have experienced domestic violence and mental health problems (Reeves et al. Citation2013). Collaboration has also been recognized as an important component of patient safety, quality improvement and continuing professional development (Kitto et al. Citation2015) and as such “outcomes” in prequalifying IPE can be viewed as building blocks for a lifetime of IPE and collaborative practice.

All curriculum developers and educators must demonstrate how their programs enable students to achieve the outcomes/standards set by regulators (Professional Standard Authority Citation2009). While competency frameworks for IPE have been established worldwide, () (Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative Working Group Citation2010; Combined Interprofessional Learning Unit Citation2010; World Health Organization Citation2010; Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel Citation2011; Curtin University Citation2013; Englander et al. Citation2013; Health Workforce Australia Citation2013), regulators in the United Kingdom have not yet published joint statements regarding outcomes or standards expected of students as an outcome of IPE. Considering CAIPE’s recommendations and the ongoing development of IPE in the United Kingdom, it is timely to review the regulatory documents to identify common outcomes/standards across professions that can be used to inform discussions regarding prequalifying IPE curricula, for a range of health profession groups, for example, identifying possible foci for interprofessional education outcomes and associated learning opportunities in Higher Education Institutions and/or through work place-based learning.

Table 2. Competency frameworks for interprofessional education (Thistlethwaite et al. Citation2014, 1–4) and common competency statements/publications (5 and 6) and potential interprofessional learning domains (7).

As a starting point for a project to develop an IPE program between medicine and pharmacy at two Scottish Higher Education Institutions, a review of the regulatory documents and a mapping exercise was undertaken. The initial mapping exercise aimed to compare the regulatory documents for preregistration medicine and pharmacy; however, this was extended to explore the documents for dentistry, nursing and the allied health professions with the intention of reviewing the common outcomes/standards between all the regulatory documents. As the two schools involved in the project also train nursing, dental and allied health professional students this extension to the mapping would “future proof” the work should there be a wish to include other students in the project at a later stage.

Methods

In order to identify common outcomes/standards for IPE between medicine and pharmacy, a decision was made to initially compare the two regulatory documents for medicine and pharmacy: Tomorrow’s Doctors (GMC Citation2009) and the draft “Revised Learning Outcomes for the Initial Education and Training of Pharmacists” (GPhC Citation2013). The GPhC-revised document was in the final stages of consultation and publication; however, in liaison with the GPhC, the decision was made to use these more up to date draft outcomes.

Tomorrow’s Doctors was used as a starting point for the mapping exercise. “Outcomes for Graduates”, Part 1, 2 and 3 were downloaded. For each outcome, the GPhC “Revised Outcomes” document was examined for similar statements in two stages. The first stage was based on identifying common themes and subthemes that existed between outcomes in the two documents. A second round was conducted by searching for key words. All outcomes within Tomorrow’s Doctors were reviewed in this way. To ensure no comparable outcomes had been missed, the GPhC document was then examined, each outcome was reviewed and compared with Tomorrow’s Doctors, and any additional overlapping outcomes were added to the mapping framework. At this point, the document was sent to the rest of the research team for review and discussion.

The decision was then made to include the other healthcare professions in the mapping exercise. The process described earlier, using the outcomes in Tomorrow’s Doctors as a starting point, was used to review and compare each of the three documents NMC Standards for Competence, the GDC Dental Team Learning Outcomes and the HCPC Standards of Proficiency. Again common themes and sub-themes were identified, followed by searching for key words. Outcomes/standards in each of the three documents were then compared with the mapped document to ensure no common themes between the documents were missed. The NMC Standards for Competence consists of a competency framework for adult, child, mental health and learning disability nursing and each of these four branches of nursing were reviewed. The GDC Standards for the Dental Team contain standards expected of all the team and those specific to certain job roles (dentists, dental nurses, dental therapists, dental hygienists, orthodontic therapists, clinical dental technicians, dental technicians). Only the outcomes for dentists were reviewed in this mapping. Finally, as the HCPC regulates 16 different health and care professions, the decision was made to review the generic standards which all of the professions must achieve.

A draft of the mapping exercise was reviewed independently by another member of the research team and the classification of the outcomes/standards under the themes and sub-themes confirmed. The revised document was then sent to the research team for review and the final set of common outcomes/standards were agreed.

Results

Seven themes and 22 subthemes were identified which link directly to the key outcomes/standards in which there was overlap between two or more professions. These are listed in and illustrated in .

Figure 1. Seven themes and 22 subthemes from the mapping exercise.

Figure 1. Seven themes and 22 subthemes from the mapping exercise.

Table 3. Seven themes and 22 subthemes identified through mapping exercise.

Knowledge for practice

All healthcare professionals are required to be proficient in the relevant basic science, with particular overlap between medicine, dentistry and pharmacy. There are also common outcomes related to principles of psychology, sociology, public health, including social determinants of health and how this applies to health through epidemiology and disease prevention. Within medicine, pharmacy and nursing reference is made to students’ applying knowledge around common conditions and their management.

Skills for practice

Several skills were common to all health professionals, such as communication with patients, good record keeping and practical procedures such as selecting appropriate investigations. Some skills are common to more than one profession, for example both medical and dental students are required to be able to prescribe medication. Other outcomes were related to skills, which were associated with a similar goal, for example, assessing patients, diagnosis and differential diagnosis, taking a patient history and the prescription and safe administration of medication that involves different but overlapping skills from medicine, pharmacy, nursing and dentistry. Students must be proficient in formulating management plans with patients, which to an extent overlaps with the next theme of “patient-centered approach”.

Patient-centered approach

All health professionals are expected to be patient-centered in their approach, to respect patients’ opinions, involve them in decision making processes and support self-care. Students must also recognize “at-risk” patients. This includes patients at risk of clinical deterioration, but additionally awareness of groups at risk of abuse or neglect, including children and vulnerable adults.

Ethical approach

This includes specific issues such as consent, capacity, confidentiality and record keeping. Additionally, all professions highlight the need for graduates to act within the ethical and legal boundaries of their profession, directing students to the relevant regulator’s ethical guidance and standards.

Continuing professional development (CPD)

This theme included keeping oneself up to date, applying an evidence-based approach to practice and reflecting on one’s own practice. For several professions, outcomes relate to participation in the development and teaching of others health professionals, including being able both to give feedback and to reflect on feedback from others.

Teamworking

Leadership, teamworking and working with colleagues were outcomes required of all health professionals. This includes being able to appreciate the roles of other health professionals and their unique contribution to patient care. The GPhC standards and GDC standards also included the ability to delegate within their standards. Communication was also highlighted in this theme.

Professionalism

Professionalism incorporates many of the outcomes already discussed, for example maintaining clinical skills and fitness to practice through CPD may be considered an aspect of professional practice. This area specifically includes demonstrating respect and the importance of equality and diversity both in how the students work with colleagues and in their care for patients. Students must recognize their own health needs and when they or colleagues may be placing patients at risk as well as maintain fitness to practice. Other aspects of professionalism included prioritization, time management, patient safety and quality improvement.

Profession-specific outcomes

The mapping exercise also identified profession-specific outcomes/standards. These varied significantly in number, from 16 identified for pharmacy to 51 identified for dentistry. However, further analysis of these outcomes/standards was beyond the scope of this exercise, which aimed to explore the common outcomes/standards for pre-qualifying healthcare professionals.

Discussion

This curriculum mapping has for the first time identified common outcomes/standards for healthcare professional graduates in the United Kingdom. The key common outcomes/standards have been grouped according to seven themes and 22 subthemes. A number of the themes, for example teamworking, skills for practice and professionalism, are areas that have already been identified as conducive to an IPE approach as they closely align with interprofessional practice. There are also a number of subthemes, such as recognizing at-risk patients, ethics and quality improvement, that represent competency overlap and which may provide opportunities for meaningful learning that can serve several purposes. For example, a quality improvement activity may have elements that have uniprofessional learning points, but adding other professional groups to the activity allows additional skills, knowledge and interprofessional capabilities to be supported.

The mapping assists in identifying potential IPE activities and appropriate professional groupings for activities to exploit the potential synergies between professions. It is also important to highlight that not all 22 subthemes may be suitable for IPE, remembering that IPE involves students learning “with from and about each other”. However, this mapping allows: (1) curriculum developers to consider designing IPE opportunities for two or more disciplines which can be mapped back to the specific outcomes/standards set by regulators; (2) new options for interprofessional learning and (3) regulators to begin to explore a common IPE curriculum for health professions in the United Kingdom. illustrates in more detail each profession-specific outcome/standard grouped according to themes and subthemes (no colour coding in table). This includes some additional peripheral subthemes.

Table 4. Mapping of themes and subthemes and regulatory outcomes/standards.

The mapping can be used to validate existing IPE programs against the regulatory outcomes/standards or, alternatively, be used either as a starting point to design new IPE initiatives or to identify an existing activity that could be used or adapted to support IPE. By way of an illustration, using the skills for practice theme, a prescribing activity could be designed based on the sub-themes such as taking a history, assessing a patient, formulating a management plan, safe prescribing and administration of medicines, record keeping, time management, working autonomously and communicating with patients, which aligns to interprofessional practice and requires teamworking and communication.

Importantly, the mapping exercise identified some themes and subthemes that are less well represented in some of the regulatory documents, for example knowledge for practice which incorporates basic sciences and physiological and social determinants of health. This may be a contentious area in some fields, with the Medical Schools Council in their position statement on IPE stating that “it is inappropriate to teach the basic sciences in an IPE format” (Medical Schools Council Citation2003); however, recent literature suggests that educators may wish to consider introducing IPE to areas, such as basic science, which traditionally are taught uniprofessionally (Thistlethwaite Citation2015). Team-based learning is an example of an approach used in teaching science topics and lending itself to integrating science and clinical practice. It also provides a vehicle for IPE activities that may provide a solution to effective scale-up, which is one of the challenges associated with IPE.

Given the ever-increasing demands on undergraduate curriculum developers and the complexity of coordinating and embedding IPE activities, it is important that when it is done, IPE is focused on those elements that most benefit from it. This mapping exercise provides a framework that supports a systematic approach to both themes and activities that may lend themselves to IPE and supports the alignment of interprofessional teaching and learning.

Strengths and limitations

A strength of this work is that the key themes and subthemes identified have similarities with other IPE frameworks, some of which link to competency and workforce capacity plans developed worldwide () and also the findings of a literature review examining outcomes of IPE (Thistlethwaite et al. Citation2014). One such example is the Australian National Common Health Capability Resource which identified five domains of activity common to the Australian workforce: provision of care, collaborative practice, health value, professional ethical and legal approach and lifelong learning (Health Workforce Australia Citation2013). These domains consist of a series of related activities that are subsequently subdivided into levels of behavior, which represent cumulative levels of skill. Its main purpose is to underpin workforce reform with clear opportunities around developing “common behavioral attributes” in the workplace.

The clear similarities in terms of the common themes support the findings from this mapping exercise as a valid representation of key themes that may inform development of IPE and which may also lead into collaborative practice in the United Kingdom. However, the latter point would require further exploration because the aim of this study was to derive a set of common outcomes/standards associated with prequalifying health profession education, which can be mapped back to the UK regulatory documents for each profession and the team did not set out to identify common post-qualification professional competencies. An additional strength of the mapping was that it was reviewed by all members of the research team, which included those with medical, pharmacy and educational backgrounds.

A limitation of this study was that the initial mapping was done by only one researcher from the team. However, the classification of the outcomes/standards under the themes and subthemes was reviewed independently by another member of the research team and confirmed. The document was also reviewed by the rest of the research team at two points in time during the study and analysis of the mapping incorporated feedback by members of the research team. However, a more robust approach would have been to have involved one or more members of the research team in independently identifying the themes in order to compare findings and made use of an external panel/group to validate those findings, as done in similar projects (Health Workforce Australia Citation2013).

Another limitation of the mapping is the transitory nature of the regulatory outcomes/standards meaning that at best it represents a snapshot against the existing regulatory documents. It is important to bear in mind the pace at which healthcare continues to progress. The GMC’s “Tomorrow’s Doctors” and the NMC “Standards for competence” are now over 5 years old, and the focus and drivers of education may have transformed such that newer up to date documents may include outcomes or standards, which are deficient or missing in previous documents, and thus in this mapping. For example, the patient safety agenda is a huge driver for improved collaborative practice and a key area for IPE, with the WHO publishing their “Multi-professional patient safety curriculum guide” in 2011 (World Health Organization Citation2011). Arguably, all the seven themes identified in this mapping exercise are essential for improving patient safety, and IPE opportunities particularly focusing on the themes “skills for practice”, “a patient-centered approach” and “team-working” should contribute to this. Patient safety is also recognized within the “continuing professional development” theme. It remains the role of educators not to be bound solely by documentation but to progress undergraduate education in line with developments in healthcare.

A further limitation is that during the mapping process the decision was made only to map the generic statements from the HCPC, rather than to examine the standards for each of the 16 professions. Further work may wish to examine this in more detail, to include for example physiotherapy and occupational therapy to investigate further the overlap between these and the other health care professions.

Ultimately, this mapping exercise highlights the opportunity for regulators to consider developing common outcomes across the professions for prequalifying IPE in the United Kingdom. One of the key aspects of delivering IPE is ensuring that it has relevance and meaning for all students and nationally derived outcomes based on all regulatory documents would help achieve this. In addition to clarifying the focus of IPE for both educators and students, further development may assist the research agenda by establishing common outcomes within and across institutions, making it easier to compare and contrast interprofessional versus uniprofessional educational interventions and assessing different methods of delivering IPE.

The purpose of this exercise was to undertake a mapping exercise in order to support the development of a program of IPE between medical and pharmacy students in two Scottish universities which would link to the regulatory standards for each profession. The themes and subthemes that have been identified as a result of this mapping will be explored in the second stage of the wider research project with a view to identifying which of the common outcomes for medical and pharmacy students may be best delivered through IPE.

Conclusions

This study identified significant overlap in the outcomes and standards expected of undergraduate healthcare students in the United Kingdom. It identified 22 common subthemes under seven key themes: knowledge for practice, skills for practice, patient-centered approach, ethical approach, professionalism, CPD and teamworking skills. The mapping provides a framework with which curriculum developers can inform discussion about IPE opportunities for two or more disciplines and deliver options for IPE which are meaningful and relevant. The amount of overlap and similarity of the outcomes in other regulatory frameworks published internationally provides strong evidence for the potential to further develop this work to produce a set of core outcomes for undergraduate IPE which are under-pinned by regulatory requirements for UK health profession graduates.

Notes on contributors

Kathryn Steven, MBChB (Hons), MRCGP, MMed, FHEA, is a GP and academic fellow in a joint post between the School of Medicine, University of Dundee and the School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University.

Stella Howden, BSc (Hons), MScEd, PhD, SFHEA, is Associate Dean for Quality and Academic Standards, School of Medicine, University of Dundee and Senior Lecturer in Medical Education, Centre for Medical Education.

Gary Mires, MBChB, MD, FRCOG, FHEA, is Dean of the School of Medicine and Professor of Obstetrics, University of Dundee and Honorary Consultant Obstetrician at Ninewells Hospital and Medical School.

Iain Rowe, BSc (Hons), PhD, FHEA, is a researcher and lecturer at the School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University

Natalie Lafferty, BSC (Hons), is Head of the Centre for Technology and Innovation in Learning and Assistant Director at the Library and Learning Centre, University of Dundee.

Amy Arnold is a pharmacist with a PhD in cardiovascular pharmacology and research experience in pharmacy education including interprofessional education and experiential learning placements.

Alison Strath, BSc (Hons), FRPharmS, is a Professor of Community Pharmacy Practice at the School of Pharmacy and Life Sciences, Robert Gordon University and is Principal Pharmaceutical Officer with Scottish Government

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Miss Annie Campbell, Medical Artist, University of Dundee who designed Figure 1.

Disclosure statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of this article.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by NHS Education for Scotland.

References