1,708
Views
8
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Short Communication

Tools to investigate how interprofessional education activities link to competencies

, , , , , & show all
Article: 28627 | Received 22 May 2015, Accepted 11 Jun 2015, Published online: 23 Jul 2015

Abstract

Integrating interprofessional education (IPE) activities and curricular components in health professions education has been emphasized recently by the inclusion of accreditation standards across disciplines. The Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) established IPE competencies in 2009, but evaluating how activities link to competencies has not been investigated in depth. The purpose of this project is to investigate how well two IPE activities align with IPEC competencies. To evaluate how our IPE activities met IPEC competencies, we developed a checklist and an observation instrument. A brief description of each is included as well as the outcomes. We analyzed Disaster Day, a simulation exercise that includes participants from Nursing, Medicine, and Pharmacy, and Interprofessional Healthcare Ethics (IPHCE), a course that introduced medical, nursing, and pharmacy students to ethical issues using didactic sessions and case discussions. While both activities appeared to facilitate the development of IPE competencies, Disaster Day aligned more with IPEC competencies than the IPHCE course and appears to be a more comprehensive way of addressing IPEC competencies. However, offering one IPE activity or curricular element is not sufficient. Having several IPE options available, utilizing the tools we developed to map the IPE curriculum and evaluating competency coverage is recommended.

Working effectively with other disciplines is an essential skill for healthcare practitioners. While the importance of interprofessional education (IPE) has been recognized for some time, the move by accreditation bodies in the health professions to incorporate IPE standards (Citation1) has served to propel IPE forward.

In 2009, Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice were developed by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) (Citation2). Institutions have utilized these competencies which are organized into four domains: Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice, Roles/Responsibilities, Interprofessional Communication, and Teams and Teamwork, to develop and guide their IPE activities. However, assessing how specific activities align with and address these competencies has not been investigated in depth.

The purpose of this manuscript is to examine the IPEC competencies and analyze how specific IPE activities addressed the competencies. The research question is: How do two IPE activities at the Texas A&M Health Science Center (TAMHSC) align with the competencies delineated by IPEC?

Methods

Disaster Day (DD) and Interprofessional Healthcare Ethics (IPHCE) were two IPE curricular elements offered at our institution. After receiving Texas A&M University's Institutional Review Board approval, each activity was evaluated for alignment with IPEC competencies. To analyze the activities, two tools, an observation instrument and a checklist, were created. A brief description of each activity and tool is provided.

DD is a disaster preparedness simulation exercise. The event originated in the College of Nursing in 2007 and currently includes participants from Nursing, Medicine, Pharmacy, Emergency Medical Technicians, Physical Therapy Assistants and Radiology, as well as standardized patients and volunteers. The length of the exercise is one day with one disaster scenario conducted in the morning and repeated in the afternoon. Health professions students interact in teams to triage, deliver, and manage scenario-based patient care situations. Each health profession has discipline-specific objectives for the event but interprofessional objectives including communication and teamwork competencies were not explicitly stated until recently.

The IPE Team Observation Instrument was developed based on the IPEC competencies and was utilized to document the demonstration of the competencies throughout DD. The instrument consists of 20 items divided into four IPEC domains. Three evaluators observed the DD simulation and rated each item as demonstrated, not demonstrated, or not applicable. The evaluators had experience observing and were familiar with the instrument, so the researchers decided to utilize percent agreement instead of Cohen's Kappa for inter-rater reliability (Citation3). The total percent agreement across all items on the observation instrument was 93%.

The IPHCE course began in 2010 and introduced health professions students to ethical issues in health care. IPHCE was a collaborative course required by the Colleges of Medicine and Nursing and was an elective for Pharmacy. The curricular activity consisted of didactic sessions and small group case discussions. Small groups were made up primarily of medical students with one or two students from other disciplines. Some of the course objectives were: analyze the impact of ethical issues on health care delivery, examine interprofessional approaches to health care and work in interprofessional groups, and apply concepts of professional practice to individual professional roles.

Since the IPHCE course no longer exists in its original format and could not be observed, a checklist was created and used to analyze the course syllabus and materials. The 42-item checklist consists of all of the IPEC competencies and sub-competencies. Two evaluators who were involved in the course and two outside evaluators reviewed the course materials and completed the checklist by placing an X in the box if the item was addressed. Inter-rater reliability and total percent agreement across all items in the checklist was 90% for the first pair of evaluators who participated in the course while the inter-rater reliability for the pair of outside evaluators who analyzed course materials but did not participate in the course was 70%. The total percent agreement was calculated separately, so that the results would not be skewed by those who had working knowledge beyond document analysis.

Results

The DD observation instrument had a Cronbach's α reliability of 0.81 and yielded data indicating the following frequencies: Values/Ethics 68%, Roles/Responsibilities 71%, Interprofessional Communication 81%, and Team/Teamwork 74%. The IPHCE checklist had a Cronbach's α reliability of 0.82. The frequencies with which the IPEC competencies appeared to be addressed in the IPHCE course include: Values/Ethics 100%, Roles/Responsibilities 22%, Interprofessional Communication 38%, and Team/Teamwork 27%. Both DD and IPHCE facilitated the development of the IPEC competencies as indicated in ().

Table 1 Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice

Discussion and conclusions

The observation instrument and the checklist both appear to be acceptable tools for determining competency alignment. Based on our analysis, DD appears to meet more of the IPEC competencies than the IPHCE course. However, the activities were evaluated using different tools, which is a limitation. Due to this, we decided to conduct a post hoc DD analysis using the IPHCE checklist. The checklist data suggest that the IPHCE course may have addressed and contributed to Values/Ethics, Roles/Responsibilities, Communication, and Team/Teamwork to some degree, but DD appears to meet more of the competencies in the four domains.

Even though DD mapped to more of the IPE competencies, having IPHCE and other IPE activities available is ideal since learning in a variety of interprofessional settings is optimal (Citation4). Utilizing the checklist and observation tool that we developed will help to ensure that all competencies are addressed. Future research may investigate whether competency alignment using these tools contributes to sustainability.

Conflict of interest and funding

This research was supported by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health under award number 1R25HL108183.

Acknowledgements

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References