Stimulating Students’ Interprofessional Teamwork Skills Through Community-Based Education: A Mixed Methods Evaluation

Figures & data

Figure 1 Design of the Sultan Agung Community-Based Interprofessional Education (SACBIPE) programme.

Table 1 Characteristics of Uni-Professional FG Participants

	Midwifery		Nursing		Medical
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender
Male	0	0	6	60.0	3	30.0
Female	8	100	4	40.0	7	70.0
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Age	19.2	0.7	19.8	0.35	20.4	0.52

Table 2 Characteristics of Subjects

	Midwifery		Nursing		Medical
	N	%	N	%	N	%
Gender
Male	0	0	27	39.1	36	42.9
Female	57	100	42	60.9	48	57.1
Experience of working with students from other study programmes
Yes	41	71.9	51	73.9	45	53.6
No	16	28.1	18	26.1	39	46.4
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Age	19.8	0.64	20.2	0.54	21.8	0.42
Response rate	81.5%		82.2%		84%

Table 3 Factor Loading of Each Item of Interprofessional Teamwork Evaluation (ITE)

Subscales	Loadings
	I	II	III
	α = 0.924	α = 0.853	α = 0.712
Communication and mutual support
Q3. All clinical roles represented (eg patient/community interview, medication history/review; diagnostic exam; intervention plan)	625
Q9. Empowers team members to speak freely and ask questions (minimal time spent dominating encounter and providing one-way orders just coming from leader)	784
Q13. Team members share focus on patient problem and outcome	726
Q14. Members provide task-related support	781
Q15. Advocates for the patient/community	582
Q16. Team members are properly assertive	726
Q17. Disagreement with team members assessment, actively and openly discuss alternatives	751
Q18 Collaborates with team members (eg, discuss things among each other in smaller groups first)	806
Q19 Introduction of team members to patient/family/community	662
Q20. Members provide brief, clear, specific and timely information/recommendations to other members	796
Q21. Members seek information from all available team members (eg ask for help; second set of eyes; solicit opinions)	808
Q22. Verify that communicated information is accurate (eg clarify when there is uncertainty or disagreement, information is verified and confirmed)	794
Q23. Member side conversations are openly communicated with team as a whole	716
Team structure and leadership
Q1. Team leader established and evident (ok to shift over course of interview, leader still clear)		660
Q2. Roles and responsibilities established (support member roles clear)		645
Q4. Clinical roles shared among members of the team (eg more than one person fulfils all roles)		727
Q5. Actively share information among team members (eg shares results of survey etc.)		706
Q6. Balances workload with team (team leader not dominating entire encounter)		775
Q7. Delegates tasks, unanswered clinical questions as appropriate		781
Q8. Conducts briefs, huddles and debriefs throughout the patient encounter (summarises, team reviews thoroughly/systematically what has happened, what still needs to be addressed, etc.)		785
Situation monitoring
Q10. Includes patient/family/community in conversation and the encounter (should occur throughout the scenario)			746
Q11. Cross monitors fellow team members (other team members find out information being exchanged and decisions being made in side conversations)			868
Q12 Update team members on patient status/result of intervention etc.			858

Table 4 Mean Difference of Each Item

	Midwifery	Nursing	Medical	p
Communication and mutual support
Q3. All clinical roles represented (eg patient/community interview, medication history/review; diagnostic exam; intervention plan)	3.72 ± 0.45	3.87±0.33	4.30±0.46	0.000*
Q9. Empowers team members to speak freely and ask questions (minimal time spent dominating encounter and providing one-way orders just coming from leader)	3.48 ± 0.50	3.61±0.49	4.40±0.54	0.000*
Q13. Team members share focus on patient/family/community problem and outcome	3.51 ± 0.53	3.56±0.50	4.37±0.53	0.000*
Q14. Members provide task-related support (eg midwife gives education to pregnant woman based on the diagnosis of doctor, etc.)	3.59 ± 0.49	3.64±0.48	4.29±0.48	0.000*
Q15. Advocates for the patient (eg “let’s think about what’s in the patient’s/community’s best interest”)	3.33 ± 0.47	3.64±0.66	4.19±0.47	0.000*
Q16. Team members are properly assertive (eg willing to participate, speak up, acknowledge)	3.55 ± 0.53	3.73±0.48	4.37±0.48	0.000*
Q17. Disagreement with team members’ assessment, actively and openly discuss alternatives	3.41 ± 0.49	3.52±0.50	4.31±0.53	0.000*
Q18 Collaborates with team members (eg, discuss things with each other in smaller groups first)	3.58 ± 0.52	3.58±0.49	4.35±0.50	0.000*
Q19 Introduction of team members to patient/family/community	3.65 ± 0.61	3.56±0.53	4.22±0.47	0.000*
Q20. Members provide brief, clear, specific and timely information/recommendations to other members	3.47 ± 0.50	3.59±0.49	4.28±0.48	0.000*
Q21. Members seek information from all available team members (eg ask for help; second set of eyes; solicit opinions)	3.42 ± 0.49	3.54±0.50	4.37±0.50	0.000*
Q22. Verify the accuracy of communicated information (eg clarify when there is uncertainty or disagreement, information is verified and confirmed)	3.46 ± 0.50	3.51±0.50	4.30±0.50	0.000*
Q23. Member’s side conversations are openly communicated with team as a whole	3.52 ± 0.53	3.68±0.48	4.16±0.48	0.000*
Team structure and leadership
Q1. Team leader established and evident (ok to shift over course of interview, leader still clear)	4.22 ± 0.72	4.02±0.51	4.03±0.50	0.041*
Q2. Roles and responsibilities established (support member roles clear)	4.14 ± 0.69	4.21±0.58	4.02±0.62	0.186
Q4. Clinical roles shared among members of the team (eg all members have roles to do)	4.08 ± 0.70	4.14±0.63	4.09±0.72	0.926
Q5. Actively share information among team members (eg shares results of survey etc.)	4.26 ± 0.74	4.08±0.63	3.93±0.63	0.009*
Q6. Balances workload with team (team leader not dominating entire encounter)	4.00 ± 0.75	4.14±0.61	3.87±0.57	0.052
Q7. Delegates tasks, unanswered clinical questions as appropriate	4.07 ± 0.77	4.09±0.57	4.05±0.61	0.929
Q8. Conducts briefs, huddles and debriefs throughout the patient encounter (summarises, team reviews thoroughly/systematically what has happened, what still needs to be addressed, etc.)	4.05 ± 0.74	4.08±0.61	4.06±0.62	0.970
Situation monitoring
Q10. Includes patient in conversation and the encounter (should occur throughout the scenario)	4.19 ± 0.62	3.96±0.65	4.02±0.58	0.109
Q11. Cross monitors fellow team members (other team members find out information being exchanged and decisions being made in side conversations)	4.17 ± 0.68	4.02±0.66	3.96±0.59	0.113
Q12 Update team members on patient status/result of interventions, etc.	4.13 ± 0.73	4.00±0.70	4.08±0.54	0.617

Note: *Significantly different based on the Kruskal–Wallis statistical test.