比较在实践环境中评估跨专业学习的四种方法。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Interprofessional Care Pub Date : 2025-01-16 DOI:10.1080/13561820.2025.2452975
Danah Alsane, Kelly S Lockeman, Darcy P Mays, Alan Dow, Krista L Donohoe, Cynthia K Kirkwood, Patricia Slattum
{"title":"比较在实践环境中评估跨专业学习的四种方法。","authors":"Danah Alsane, Kelly S Lockeman, Darcy P Mays, Alan Dow, Krista L Donohoe, Cynthia K Kirkwood, Patricia Slattum","doi":"10.1080/13561820.2025.2452975","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Healthcare practitioners must be trained to collaborate in a dynamic environment where patients are complex and teams can change from day-to-day, but choosing the right measures to assess the effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork among learners is challenging. This study used measures representing four different perspectives to assess student teams in a practice setting where team composition varied each day. We tested the strength of the relationships between these measures, and we examined the impact of additional variables on each measure. Participants were students from different health professions at a single university and patients in a community-based wellness program. We sampled 100 wellness visits where an interprofessional student team met with a patient, and we assessed team effectiveness using student perceptions of their team, patient ratings, observer ratings, and faculty assessments of team healthcare plans for the patient. We calculated bivariate correlations between the four measures and used regression analyses to assess the impact of predictors including student, patient, and clinic/site characteristics, on each measure of team effectiveness. There were small but significant negative correlations between the assessments of faculty and observers (<i>r</i> = - 0.23), as well as between faculty and patients (<i>r</i> = - 0.14). Conversely, a small but significant positive correlation was found between the assessments of patients and observers (<i>r</i> = 0.15). Among the regression models, faculty and patient ratings of team effectiveness were more strongly related to the predictors measured (R-squared = 53.6% and 41.7%, respectively). Patient age and number of clinic visits, team size, and clinic site were significant factors for predicting team effectiveness across the two measures. Our findings provide evidence that different perspectives of team effectiveness measure different constructs. While all approaches have value, in IPE practice settings, team effectiveness should be evaluated with multiple measures to understand performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Teamwork in dynamic healthcare environments is complex, and simple measurement approaches may mischaracterize learning and clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":50174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing four methods for assessing interprofessional learning in a practice setting.\",\"authors\":\"Danah Alsane, Kelly S Lockeman, Darcy P Mays, Alan Dow, Krista L Donohoe, Cynthia K Kirkwood, Patricia Slattum\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13561820.2025.2452975\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Healthcare practitioners must be trained to collaborate in a dynamic environment where patients are complex and teams can change from day-to-day, but choosing the right measures to assess the effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork among learners is challenging. This study used measures representing four different perspectives to assess student teams in a practice setting where team composition varied each day. We tested the strength of the relationships between these measures, and we examined the impact of additional variables on each measure. Participants were students from different health professions at a single university and patients in a community-based wellness program. We sampled 100 wellness visits where an interprofessional student team met with a patient, and we assessed team effectiveness using student perceptions of their team, patient ratings, observer ratings, and faculty assessments of team healthcare plans for the patient. We calculated bivariate correlations between the four measures and used regression analyses to assess the impact of predictors including student, patient, and clinic/site characteristics, on each measure of team effectiveness. There were small but significant negative correlations between the assessments of faculty and observers (<i>r</i> = - 0.23), as well as between faculty and patients (<i>r</i> = - 0.14). Conversely, a small but significant positive correlation was found between the assessments of patients and observers (<i>r</i> = 0.15). Among the regression models, faculty and patient ratings of team effectiveness were more strongly related to the predictors measured (R-squared = 53.6% and 41.7%, respectively). Patient age and number of clinic visits, team size, and clinic site were significant factors for predicting team effectiveness across the two measures. Our findings provide evidence that different perspectives of team effectiveness measure different constructs. While all approaches have value, in IPE practice settings, team effectiveness should be evaluated with multiple measures to understand performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Teamwork in dynamic healthcare environments is complex, and simple measurement approaches may mischaracterize learning and clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interprofessional Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interprofessional Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2025.2452975\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2025.2452975","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗保健从业人员必须接受培训,以便在一个动态的环境中进行协作,在这个环境中,患者是复杂的,团队每天都在变化,但是选择正确的措施来评估学习者之间跨专业团队合作的有效性是具有挑战性的。这项研究使用了代表四种不同观点的方法来评估学生团队在每天团队组成变化的实践环境中的表现。我们测试了这些测量之间关系的强度,并检查了附加变量对每个测量的影响。参与者是来自同一所大学不同卫生专业的学生和社区健康项目的患者。我们抽样了100次健康访问,在这些访问中,一个跨专业的学生团队会见了一位患者,我们使用学生对他们团队的看法、患者评分、观察员评分和教师对患者团队医疗保健计划的评估来评估团队有效性。我们计算了四种测量方法之间的双变量相关性,并使用回归分析来评估包括学生、患者和诊所/地点特征在内的预测因子对团队有效性每个测量方法的影响。教师和观察者的评估之间(r = - 0.23)以及教师和患者之间(r = - 0.14)存在较小但显著的负相关。相反,在患者和观察者的评估之间发现了一个小但显著的正相关(r = 0.15)。在回归模型中,教师和患者对团队效能的评价与预测因子的相关性更强(r²分别为53.6%和41.7%)。患者年龄和就诊次数、团队规模和诊所地点是预测两种测量方法中团队有效性的重要因素。我们的研究结果提供了证据,证明团队效率的不同视角测量了不同的结构。虽然所有方法都有价值,但在IPE实践环境中,团队有效性应该用多种方法来评估,以了解绩效并确定改进的机会。动态医疗环境中的团队合作是复杂的,简单的测量方法可能会错误地描述学习和临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Comparing four methods for assessing interprofessional learning in a practice setting.

Healthcare practitioners must be trained to collaborate in a dynamic environment where patients are complex and teams can change from day-to-day, but choosing the right measures to assess the effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork among learners is challenging. This study used measures representing four different perspectives to assess student teams in a practice setting where team composition varied each day. We tested the strength of the relationships between these measures, and we examined the impact of additional variables on each measure. Participants were students from different health professions at a single university and patients in a community-based wellness program. We sampled 100 wellness visits where an interprofessional student team met with a patient, and we assessed team effectiveness using student perceptions of their team, patient ratings, observer ratings, and faculty assessments of team healthcare plans for the patient. We calculated bivariate correlations between the four measures and used regression analyses to assess the impact of predictors including student, patient, and clinic/site characteristics, on each measure of team effectiveness. There were small but significant negative correlations between the assessments of faculty and observers (r = - 0.23), as well as between faculty and patients (r = - 0.14). Conversely, a small but significant positive correlation was found between the assessments of patients and observers (r = 0.15). Among the regression models, faculty and patient ratings of team effectiveness were more strongly related to the predictors measured (R-squared = 53.6% and 41.7%, respectively). Patient age and number of clinic visits, team size, and clinic site were significant factors for predicting team effectiveness across the two measures. Our findings provide evidence that different perspectives of team effectiveness measure different constructs. While all approaches have value, in IPE practice settings, team effectiveness should be evaluated with multiple measures to understand performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Teamwork in dynamic healthcare environments is complex, and simple measurement approaches may mischaracterize learning and clinical outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interprofessional Care
Journal of Interprofessional Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
14.80%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interprofessional Care disseminates research and new developments in the field of interprofessional education and practice. We welcome contributions containing an explicit interprofessional focus, and involving a range of settings, professions, and fields. Areas of practice covered include primary, community and hospital care, health education and public health, and beyond health and social care into fields such as criminal justice and primary/elementary education. Papers introducing additional interprofessional views, for example, from a community development or environmental design perspective, are welcome. The Journal is disseminated internationally and encourages submissions from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Characteristics and outcomes of communities of practice in allied health educators: rapid review. Interprofessional education stroke workshop: case-based learning for occupational therapy and speech-language pathology students. The impact of healthcare funding on interprofessional collaboration and integrated service delivery in primary and allied healthcare: a scoping review. Co-designing interprofessional education in primary healthcare: an illustration from the Make My Day stroke prevention project. Where is the voice of lived experience in interprofessional education? A scoping review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1