Start of the Road: Views on Interprofessional Education among Faculty of a Medical School in Turkey

Abstract

Aim: Interprofessional Education (IPE) has been emphasized as an important pedagogical strategy for improving collaboration and the quality of care. Before implementing this strategy to curriculum with a program it is important to determine the views of the instructors about the program, for its initiation, sustainability and success. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the opinions of faculty members in the Süleyman Demirel University School of Medicine (SDUSM) about IPE.

Methods: This descriptive study used qualitative data obtained with the semi-structure interview method. Out of 185 faculty members, 38 of them attended an informative meeting about IPE. The sample group was established by random selection who volunteered to participate, interviews continued t ill the data saturation is observed (n=14). The recordings of the interview were transcribed and content analyses of the qualitative data were carried out by four experts. MAXQDA software (version 12) was used in content analysis for thematic coding and determining frequency distributions.2 Results: The faculty members discussed the feasibility of IPE programs, models of the educational program, the positive aspects and barriers of implementing IPE and its potential contribution to the medical profession. Faculty members mentioned several barriers related to the implementation of IPE. Also, they stated that the IPE approach would facilitate adaptation to professional life and possibly help produce well-equipped and self-confident doctors with strong communication, empathy, and team working skills.

Conclusions: In line with these opinions, IPE can be considered as an educational method that can be implemented in SDUSM.

Keywords

• Interprofessional Education
• Faculty Members
• Program Development

Yolun Başı: Bir Tıp Fakültesi Özelinde Mesleklerarası Eğitime İlişkin Öğretim Üyelerinin Görüşleri

Abstract

Amaç: Meslekler arası eğitim (MAE), iş birliğini ve bakım kalitesini iyileştirmek için önemli bir pedagojik strateji olarak vurgulanmıştır. Bu stratejiyi içeren bir programı müfredata dahil etmeden önce, programın başlatılması, sürdürülebilirliği ve başarısı için eğitmenlerin program hakkındaki görüşlerini belirlemek önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi (SDUSM) öğretim üyelerinin MAE’e ilişkin görüşlerini değerlendirmektir.

Yöntem: Nitel verilerin kullanıldığı tanımlayıcı tipteki araştırmada, yarı-yapılandırılmış görüşme yöntemi kullanılmıştır. SDÜTF’de görevli 185 öğretim üyelerine MAE hakkında bilgilendirme toplantısı düzenlenmiş ve 38 öğretim üyesi bu toplantıya katılmıştır. Çalışmanın örneklemi toplantıya katılan ve çalışmaya katılmaya gönüllü olan kişiler arasından rastgele seçimle belirlenmiş ve veri doygunluğuna ulaşılıncaya kadar görüşmeler devam etmiştir (n = 14). Görüşmelerin kayıtları yazıya dökülmüş ve nitel verilerin içerik analizleri dört uzman tarafından yapılmıştır. Tematik kodlama ve frekans dağılımlarının belirlenmesi için içerik analizinde MAXQDA yazılımı (sürüm 12) kullanılmıştır.

Bulgular: Öğretim üyeleri, MAE programlarının fizibilitesini, eğitim programı modellerini, MAE uygulamasının olumlu yönlerini ve uygulamanın önündeki engelleri ve bu uygulamaların tıp mesleğine olası katkılarını tartıştılar. Öğretim üyeleri MAE'in uygulanmasıyla ilgili çeşitli engellerden bahsettiler. Bununla birlikte, MAE yaklaşımının profesyonel hayata uyumu kolaylaştıracağını ve muhtemelen güçlü iletişim, empati ve takım çalışması becerilerine sahip iyi donanımlı ve kendine güvenen doktorlar yetiştirmeye yardımcı olacağını belirtmişlerdir.

Sonuç: Bu görüşler doğrultusunda MAE, SDÜTF'de uygulanabilecek bir eğitim yöntemi olarak düşünülebilir.

Keywords

• Mesleklerarası Eğitim
• Fakülte Üyeleri
• Program Geliştirme

References

1. 1. Jones R V. Working together--learning together. The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners Occasional paper. 1986;(33):1–26.
2. 2. WHO. Learning together to work together for health: report of a WHO Study Group on Multiprofessional Education of Health Personnel: the Team Approach. 1988.
3. 3. WHO. WHO | Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. WHO. World Health Organization; 2015.
4. 4. WHO. Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. 2010. 5. Buring SM, Bhushan A, Broeseker A, Conway S, Duncan-Hewitt W, Hansen L, et al. Interprofessional education: Definitions, student competencies, and guidelines for implementation. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. 2009;73(4):1–8.
5. 6. Garling PS. Final report of the special commission of inquiry acute care services in NSW public hospitals. Vol. 1, Hospitals. NSW Dept. of Premier and Cabinet; 2008.
6. 7. Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human. Building a Safer Health System. National A. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2006.
7. 8. Denham CR, Dingman J, Foley M, Ford D, Martins B, O’Regan P, et al. Are You Really Listening? J Patient Saf. 2008;4(3):148–61.
8. 9. Bandali K, Niblett B, Yeung Chi PT, Gamble P. Beyond curriculum: Embedding interprofessional collaboration into academic culture. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2011;25:75–6.

9. 10. Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians. Doctors in society. Medical professionalism in a changing world. Clinical medicine (London, England). 2005;5(6 Suppl 1):S5-40.
10. 11. El-Awaisi A, Anderson E, Barr H, Wilby KJ, Wilbur K, Bainbridge L. Important steps for introducing interprofessional education into health professional education. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences. 2016;11(6):546–51.
11. 12. Djukic M, Adams J, Fulmer T, Szyld D, Lee S, Oh SY, et al. E-Learning with virtual teammates: A novel approach to interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2015;29(5):476–82.
12. 13. Gordon F, Booth K, Bywater H. Developing an e-pedagogy for interprofessional learning: Lecturers’ thinking on curriculum design. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2010;24(5):536–48.
13. 14. Riesen E, Morley M, Clendinneng D, Ogilvie S, Ann Murray M. Improving interprofessional competence in undergraduate students using a novel blended learning approach. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2012;26(4):312–8.
14. 15. Gardner SF, Chamberlin GD, Heestand DE, Stowe CD. Interdisciplinary didactic instruction at academic health centers in the United States: attitudes and barriers. Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice. 2002;7(3):179–90.
15. 16. Hammick M, Freeth D, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H, Freeth D, et al. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education : BEME Guide no . 9. Medical Teacher. 2017;29(8):735–51.
16. 17. Chuang AW, Nuthalapaty FS, Casey PM, Kaczmarczyk JM, Cullimore AJ, Dalrymple JL, et al. To the point: reviews in medical education—taking control of the hidden curriculum. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2010;203(4):1–6.
17. 18. Parsell G, Bligh J. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Medical education. 1999;33(2):95–100.
18. 19. Anderson E, Hean S, O’Halloran C, Pitt R, Hammick M. Faculty Development for Interprofessional Education and Practice. In: Faculty Development in the Health Professions: A Focus on Research and Practice Innovation and Change in Professional Education. 11th ed. Springer, pp.; 2014. p. 287–310.
19. 20. El-Awaisi A, Joseph S, El Hajj MS, Diack L. Pharmacy academics’ perspectives toward interprofessional Education prior to its implementation in Qatar: a qualitative study. BMC Medical Education. 2019;19(1):1–15.
20. 21. Fraenkel JR, Allen NE, Hyun HH. Introduction to Qualitative Research. In: How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill comp; 2011. p. 264–301.
21. 22. Sarmasoğlu Ş, Elçin M, Masiello İ. Educators ’ Experiences About Successful Interprofessional Education Programs : Karolinska Institute Example. Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing. 2018;5(1):14–28.
22. 23. Khajehghyasi RV, Ebrahim S, Jafari M, Shahbaznejad L, Nitesh V. Mehta, Mohith Shamdas TJA, Hinderer KA, et al. Faculty Perceptions, Knowledge, and Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Education and Practice. Journal of allied health. 2017;45(1):1.
23. 24. Tashiro J, Byrne C, Kitchen L, Vogel E, Bianco C. The Development of Competencies in Interprofessional Health Care for Use in Health Science Educational Programs. Journal of Research in Interprofessional Practice and Education. 2011;2(1):63–82.
24. 25. Daloğlu M, Şenol Y. Multiprofesyonel Eğitim: Avantajlar, Zorluklar ve Program Geliştirme Önerileri. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2018;1(51):5–12.
25. 26. Boztepe H, Terzioğlu F. Sağlık Eğitiminde Meslekler Arası Eğitim. Anadolu Hemşirelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2015;18(3):223–8.
26. 27. Dallaghan GLB, Hoffman E, Lyden E, Bevil C. Faculty attitudes about interprofessional education. Medical Education Online. 2014;19(25752):1–8.
27. 28. Bennett PN, Gum L, Lindeman I, Lawn S, Mcallister S, Richards J, et al. Faculty perceptions of interprofessional education. Nurse Education Today. 2011;31(6):571–6.
28. 29. Reeves S, Goldman J, Gilbert J, Tepper J, Silver I, Suter E, et al. A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2011;25(3):167–74.
29. 30. Oandasan I, Reeves Sc. Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: The learner, the educator and the learning context. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2005;19(sup1):21–38.
30. 31. Curran VR, Sharpe D, Forristall J. Attitudes of health sciences faculty members towards interprofessional teamwork and education. Medical Education. 2007;41(9):892–6.
31. 32. Carlisle C, Cooper H, Watkins C. “Do none of you talk to each other?”: the challenges facing the implementation of interprofessional education. Medical Teacher. 2004;26(6):545–52.
32. 33. Reeves S, Anthony P. Emerging themes: an exploratoryresearch project of an interprofessional education module for medical, dental and nursing students. Nurse Education Today. 1998;18(7):534–41.