Meslekler Arası Eğitimin Temellerini Keşfetmek: Bir Eylem Araştırmasının Keşif Basamağı

Öz

Giriş: Sağlık çalışanlarının, omuz omuza çalıştıkları meslek hayatlarına hazırlanırken eğitim süreçlerinde de birlikte, bir arada ve birbirlerinden öğrenmeleri gerekmektedir. Bu çalışma, yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler yoluyla meslekler arası eğitimin (MAE) temellerini, bir eylem araştırmasının keşif aşamasında incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Sağlık profesyonellerinin eğitiminde MAE yaklaşımının gerekliliği, önemi ve uygulanabilirliği ele alınmaktadır. Yöntem: Araştırmanın metodolojisi, meslekler arası eğitim program tasarımı için eylem araştırmasının keşif basamağında nitel veri toplama ve analizi süreçlerini içermektedir. Bu araştırma, Türkiye'de sağlık eğitimi veren yükseköğretim kurumunda görev yapan 22 öğretim üyesiyle yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış derinlemesine görüşmeler üzerine kurulmuştur. Veri toplama, 2021 yılında çevrimiçi olarak yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış görüşmeler aracılığıyla gerçekleştirilmiş ve NVIVO yazılımı kullanılarak içerik analizi uygulanmıştır. Bulgular; Öğretim üyelerinin %77,27’si kadın (n:17), %22,72’si erkektir (n:5), yaş ortalamaları 42,31 (±6.88)’dir. Öğretim üyelerinin %13,63 (n:3) profesör %40,90 (n:9) doçent ve 10’u (%45,45) doktor öğretim üyesi olarak çalışmaktadır. Öğretim üyelerinin %13,63’ü (n:3) Diş Hekimliği %40,90’ı (n:9) Tıp ve %45,45’i (n:10) Sağlık Bilimleri (Hemşirelik, Beslenme ve Diyetetik ve Fizyoterapi) fakültesinde öğretim üyesi olarak çalışmaktadır. Nitel veri analizi sonrası temel bulgular dört ana tema altında toplanmıştır: Eğitim Anlayışı ve Önemi, MAE Program tasarımı, Kurumsal Kültür ve Uygulamalar ve Meslekler Arası Eğitimle İlgili Metaforlardır. Her tema, katılımcıların görüşleri ve örnek ifadeleriyle ayrıntılı bir şekilde incelenmiştir. Çalışmada, sağlık hizmetlerindeki iş birliği eksikliği ve bunun sağlık eğitimi ile profesyonel sağlık kuruluşları arasındaki iş birliğini güçlendirmek için gerekli stratejilere paralel olduğu vurgulanmıştır. Araştırmacılar, sağlık hizmetlerinin daha etkin, verimli ve düşük maliyetle sunulması için meslekler arası iş birliği ve eğitimin artan bir ihtiyaç olduğunu belirtmiştir. Sonuç: Bu çalışma, meslekler arası eğitimin sağlık sektöründeki önemini ve etkinliğini detaylı bir şekilde ele almış, öğretim üyelerinin ve sağlık profesyonellerinin bu konudaki farkındalıklarını, ihtiyaçlarını ve MAE program tasarımına yönelik önerilerini içermekte ve rehber niteliğinde bir kaynak sunmaktadır. Araştırma sonuçları, meslekler arası eğitimin sağlık hizmetlerinin kalitesini artırma ve hastaların sağlık sonuçlarını iyileştirme potansiyeline sahip olduğunu göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Meslekler Arası Eğitim
• Sağlık Profesyonelleri
• Örgüt Kültürü
• Eylem Araştırması;
• Yarı Yapılandırılmış Derinlemesine Görüşme

Proje Numarası

35950415-604.01.01-E.5899

Exploring the Foundations of Interprofessional Education: Reconnaissance Phase of an Action Research

Öz

Aim: Healthcare professionals need to learn with, together, and from each other during their training as they prepare for their collaborative roles in the field. This study aims to explore faculty members' awareness, needs, and thoughts on program design in the field of Interprofessional Education (IPE). Methods: The methodology of the research involves qualitative data collection and analysis in the exploratory stage of action research for IPE program design. The study is based on semi-structured in-depth interviews with 22 faculty members who do not practice IPE in a health education institution in Turkey. Data collection was conducted online through semi-structured interviews in 2021 and descriptive thematic analysis was applied using NVIVO software. Results: Findings show that 77.27% of the participants are female (n:17) with an average age of 42.31. Among the faculty members, 3 (13.63%) are professors, 9 (40.90%) are associate professors, and 10 (45.45%) are assistant professors. 9 (40.90%) of the faculty members are from the Medicine faculty, 10 (45.45%) from Health Sciences (Nursing, Nutrition and Dietetics, and Physiotherapy), and 3 (13.63%) are from the Dentistry faculty. After the qualitative data analysis, the main findings were divided into five main themes: Educational Philosophy and Importance, Application and Methodology, Educational Content and Methods, Institutional Culture and Practices, and Interprofessional Education and Metaphors. Each theme was examined in detail with participants' opinions and illustrative expressions. The study emphasizes the lack of collaboration in health services and how this parallels the need for strategies to strengthen collaboration between health education and professional health organizations. Researchers point out that health services need to be delivered more effectively, efficiently, and at lower cost, and in this process, the need for interprofessional collaboration and education is increasing. Conclusions: This study comprehensively addresses the importance and effectiveness of IPE in the health sector, encompassing faculty members' and health professionals' awareness, needs, and recommendations for IPE program design, and offers a guiding resource. The results of the research demonstrate the potential of IPE to enhance the quality of health services and improve patient health outcomes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Interprofessional Education
• Health Professionals
• Organisational Culture
• Action Research
• Semi-structured In-depth Interview

Destekleyen Kurum

Scientific Research Projects Committee of İzmir Democracy University (İzmir Demokrasi Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Projeleri)

Proje Numarası

35950415-604.01.01-E.5899

Etik Beyan

Ethical approval for the study was obtained from Ege BAYEK on 31.10.2019 with the approval number 11/08-407.

Teşekkür

I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to the Scientific Research Projects Committee of İzmir Democracy University for their valuable support in conducting this study.

Kaynakça

1. Kaynaklar 1. Oandasan I. Changing organizational culture to embrace interprofessional education and interprofessional practice. Interprofessional client-centred Collaborative Practice 2015. p. 67–82.
2. 2. Puppatz M. Assessing Organizational Culture and Investigating its Link to Organizational Effectiveness. 2017. p. 229.
3. 3. Storberg Walker J, Torraco R. Change and Higher Education: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Austin, TX,: Paper presented at the Academy of Human Resource Development International Conference (AHRD); 2004; 811-8.
4. 4. World Health Organization. Working together for health. 2006.
5. 5. Kim YJ, Radloff JC, Stokes CK, Lysaght CR. Interprofessional education for health science students’ attitudes and readiness to work interprofessionally: a prospective cohort study. Braz J Phys Ther. Elsevier; 2019;23(4):337–45. DOI: 10.1016/J.BJPT.2018.09.003
6. 6. Murphy S. Understanding And Facilitating Interprofessional Education: A Guide to Incorporating Interprofessional Experiences into the Practice Education Setting. 2013;58. Available from: http://physicaltherapy.med.ubc.ca/files/2012/09/IPE-Guide-2nd-ed.-May-2012.pdf
7. 7. Vanclay L. Interprofessional Education: What, How & When. Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education. 1997.
8. 8. Barr H, Lennox A. Medicine and The Making of Interprofessional Education: A Celebration. London: Valedictory address by the president of the General Practice with Primary Health Care section of the Royal Society of Medicine; 2009.

9. 9. Barr, H., Ford, J., Gray, R., Helme, M.& Reeves S. CAIPE (2017) Continuing Interprofessional Development: Guidelines. 2017.
10. 10. Barr H. CAIPE (2002) Interprofessional Education: Today, Yesterday and Tomorrow. CAIPE - The UK Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional. 2002;47.
11. 11. Thistlethwaite JE. Values-Based Interprofessional Collaborative Practice_Working Together in Health Care (Values-Based Practice). Cambridge University Press; 2012.
12. 12. World Health Organization (WHO). Learning together to work together for health : report of a WHO Study Group on Multiprofessional Education of Health Personnel: the Team Approach. In Learning Together To Work Together For Health. Technical Report (Vol. 769). [Internet]. Geneva; 1988 [cited 2022 Jun 5]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/37411.
13. 13. Ivankova N, Wingo N. Applying Mixed Methods in Action Research: Methodological Potentials and Advantages. American Behavioral Scientist. 2018;62(7):978–97. DOI: 10.1177/0002764218772673
14. 14. Mills GE. Action Research A Guide for the Teacher Researcher. Fifth Edition. United States of America: Pearson Education Limited; 2014.
15. 15. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB. How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol. 2017;69(2):107–31. DOI: 10.1007/s11577-017-0454-1
16. 16. Eysenbach G KC. How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. . BMJ. 2002;324(7337):573-7.
17. 17. Matulewicz AT, Lanning SK, Lockeman K, Frankart LM, Peron EP, Powers K, et al. Using a Mixed Methods Approach to Explore Perceptions of Early Learners in Classroom-Based Interprofessional Education Experiences. 2020; DOI: 10.5688/ajpe7693
18. 18. Sarmasoğlu Ş, Elçin M, Masiello İ. Experiences About Successful Interprofessional Education Programs: Karolinska Institute Example (Araştırma). Journal of Hacettepe University Faculty of Nursing [Internet]. 2018;5(1):14–8. Available from: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1652-906X
19. 19. WHO. Declaration of Alma-Ata. 1978.
20. 20. Voyce C, Subocz S. Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Organizational Culture and Faculty Members’ Perceptions of Organizational Culture and Implementation of Interprofessional Education (Doctoral Dissertation). Walden University; 2020. Available from: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations
21. 21. Darlow B, Coleman K, Mckinlay E, Donovan S, Beckingsale L, Gray B, et al. The Positive Impact of Interprofessional Education: A Controlled Trial to Evaluate A Programme for Health Professional Students. 2015; DOI: 10.1186/s12909-015-0385-3
22. 22. Musal B, Aluş Tokat M., Ergönül E., Konakcı S., Günay T., Özçakar N., et al. Tip Fakültesi Ve Hemşirelik Fakültesi Öğrencilerinin Birlikte Öğrenme Deneyimi. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. Tıp Eğitimini Geliştirme Derneği; 2019;18(56):5–15. DOI: 10.25282/TED.592552
23. 23. DALOĞLU M, ŞENOL Y. Multiprofesyonel Eğitim: Avantajlar, Zorluklar ve Program Geliştirme Önerileri. Tıp Eğitimi Dünyası. 2018;5–12. DOI: 10.25282/ted.365194
24. 24. Beck Dallaghan GL, Hoffman E, Lyden E, Bevil C. Faculty attitudes about interprofessional education. https://doi.org/103402/meo.v2132065. Taylor & Francis; 2016;21(1). DOI: 10.3402/MEO.V21.32065
25. 25. Reeves S, Hean S. Why we need theory to help us better understand the nature of interprofessional education, practice and care. Journal of Interprofessional Care . 2013;27(1):1–3. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2013.751293
26. 26. Sargeant J, Macleod T, Murray A. An Interprofessional Approach to Teaching Communication Skills. Journal Of Contınuıng Educatıon In The Health Professıons. 2011;31(4):265–7. DOI: 10.1002/chp.20139
27. 27. Mèche P, Meyenberg C-L, Douchamps L, Theubet A, Emilien J. Design and implementation of an interprofessional education course for undergraduate students at the University of Applied Sciences Western Switzerland: the Geneva experience. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(3):279–80. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.950728
28. 28. Frakes K-A, Brownie S, Davies L, Thomas J, Miller M-E, Tyack Z. Journal of Interprofessional Care Experiences from an interprofessional student-assisted chronic disease clinic. J Interprof Care. Informa UK Ltd; 2014;28(6):573–5. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.917404
29. 29. Addy CL, Browne T, Blake EW, Bailey J. Enhancing Interprofessional Education: Integrating Public Health and Social Work Perspectives. American Journal of Public Health | Supplement. 2015;1(S1). DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302502
30. 30. Wipfler K, Hoffmann JE, Mahler C. Patient safety-Development, implementation and evaluation of an interprofessional teaching concept Heidelberg. GMS Journal for Medical Education. 2019;36(2).
31. 31. Webb LA, MS, BH, LS, & BLK. Medical students’ views about interprofessional clinical skills sessions for delivering interprofessional education. . J Contemp Med Educ. 2021;11(7):1–8.
32. 32. Parsell G, Bligh J. The Development of a Questionnaire to Assess the Readiness of Health Care Students for Interprofessional Learning (RIPLS). Med Educ. Med Educ; 1999;33(2):95–100. DOI: 10.1046/J.1365-2923.1999.00298.X
33. 33. Reid R, Bruce D, Allstaff K, McLernon D. Validating the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) in the postgraduate context: are health care professionals ready for IPL? Med Educ. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2006;40(5):415–22. DOI: 10.1111/J.1365-2929.2006.02442.X
34. 34. Oandasan I, & RSc. Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: The learner, the educator and the learning context. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(sup1):23–38.
35. 35. Dunnack HJ. Health care providers’ perceptions of interprofessional simulation: A meta-ethnography. J Interprof Educ Pract. Elsevier Inc.; 2020;21. DOI: 10.1016/j.xjep.2020.100394
36. 36. Montano AR. “All for One” experiences of interprofessional team members caring for older adults: A metasynthesis. Int J Older People Nurs. Wiley-Blackwell; 2020;15(1). DOI: 10.1111/opn.12290
37. 37. Cahn PS. Seven Dirty Words: Hot-Button Language That Undermines Interprofessional Education and Practice. Vol. 92, Academic Medicine Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2017. p. 1086–90.
38. 38. de Nooijer J, Dolmans DHJM, Stalmeijer RE. Applying Landscapes of Practice Principles to the Design of Interprofessional Education. Teach Learn Med. Routledge; 2022;34(2):209–14. DOI: 10.1080/10401334.2021.1904937