Effects of interprofessional education on patient perceived quality of care

Figures & data

Table

Practice points

To evaluate outcome of medical education at patient level is important, complicated, but possible. We have shown that from a patient perspective the CEW provides increased quality of communication and collaboration as compared to usual care. We found no signs of disadvantages when patients were treated and informed by supervised interprofessional student teams. A more structured interprofessional team-based care may be beneficial even in usual care.

Table 1.  Perceived quality of care among patients at the Clinical Education Ward compared to in Usual care. The answers were considered to be significant at p < 0.05 are shown as bold values in the table

	CEW				Usual care
Question	Yes	Partly	No	N A	Yes	Partly	No	N A	p-value
1. Did you understand the information given to you regarding the results of your treatment?	61(73)	19(23)	3(4)	1	36(60)	14(23)	10(17)	1	0.02
2. Where you involved in the decisions regarding your care?	63(76)	17(20)	3(4)		39(65)	9(15)	12(20)		0.006
3. Did you get enough information regarding as to how your disease will influence your daily living?	34(44)	28(36)	15(20)	6	22(37)	23(38)	15(25)	2	0.6
4. Did you receive information regarding possible home assistance?	49(72)	17(25)	2(3)	15	20(49)	12(29)	9(22)	19	0.003
5. At discharge – were you informed on whom to contact if you had questions?	58(77)		17(23)	7	44(76)		14(24)	3	0.8
6. Were you bothered, at discharge, on how to cope at home?	45(54)	33(39)	6(7)		38(64)	14(24)	7(12)		0.12
7. Did the staff take your family and home situation into account when preparing for discharge?	62(75)	19(23)	2(2)		34(59)	10(17)	14(24)		0.0002

Notes: All values are given as count and percentage; n (%). p-values are calculated according to Chi-square statistics. Answers could be given as Yes; Partly; No or Not applicable (N A).

Figure 1. Assessment of IPE outcome at six levels. The relevance to patients and the complexity of the evaluation increases by each level of the ladder. Adopted from Kirkpatrick (1967) and Hammick et al. (2007). Note: *Denotes the levels of evaluation used in this study.

Kirkpatrick DL. Evaluation of training. Training and development handbook, R Craig, I Bittel. McGraw-Hill, New York 1967; 87–112

 Google Scholar

Hammick M, Freeth D, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9. Med Teach 2007; 29(8)735–751

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar