Display options
Cite
McKinlay E, White K, McChesney P, et al. Interprofessional Education for Cancer Care. Clin Teach. 2018;16(5):519-524doi: 10.1111/tct.12985.
McKinlay, E., White, K., McChesney, P., Hardie, C., Higgs, R., Hilder, J., & Gallagher, P. (2019). Interprofessional Education for Cancer Care. The clinical teacher, 16(5), 519-524. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12985
McKinlay, Eileen, et al. "Interprofessional Education for Cancer Care." The clinical teacher vol. 16,5 (2019): 519-524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12985
McKinlay E, White K, McChesney P, Hardie C, Higgs R, Hilder J, Gallagher P. Interprofessional Education for Cancer Care. Clin Teach. 2019 Oct;16(5):519-524. doi: 10.1111/tct.12985. Epub 2018 Dec 17. PMID: 30560577.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Teach. 2019 Oct;16(5):519-524. doi: 10.1111/tct.12985. Epub 2018 Dec 17.

Interprofessional Education for Cancer Care.

The clinical teacher

Eileen McKinlay, Kristen White, Pauline McChesney, Claire Hardie, Rebekah Higgs, Jo Hilder, Peter Gallagher

Affiliations

  1. University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand.
  2. Palmerston North Hospital, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

PMID: 30560577 DOI: 10.1111/tct.12985

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is typically delivered by a range of health professionals, and is frequently a uniprofessional pre-registration clinical placement. A workplace-based, 6-hour interprofessional education (IPE) pilot on cancer care, led by clinical tutors, was undertaken in a New Zealand hospital, accompanied by an external evaluation. The pilot involved a cohort of 21 dietetic, medicine, pharmacy, physiotherapy and radiation therapy students. The aim of the evaluation was to determine student and tutor reactions to IPE, and any changes in perceptions and attitudes.

METHODS: The evaluation used focus groups to collect data: two student groups and one tutor group. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed; the content was coded and then analysed.

RESULTS: Both students and tutors reported benefits from having IPE in the workplace environment, with cancer care seen as a suitable topic. Students reported a better understanding of professional roles, skills and the provision of collaborative care, and suggested other professions should be included in future IPE. Patient selection needed to be better tailored for physiotherapy students to ensure uniform relevance. As a result of competing demands, tutors found that they needed an 18-month lead time to establish the IPE programme. Tutors felt that the programme had gone relatively smoothly and that they had benefitted from forming closer interpersonal relationships, but noted considerable unanticipated and unremunerated preparation time.

DISCUSSION: This short workplace-based IPE programme elicited a positive student and tutor response, but highlighted the need for improvements: broadening the topic area, targeted patient selection, including more professions and providing administrative support for tutors. Cancer care was generally seen as a suitable topic.

© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.

References

  1. Institute of Medicine. Measuring the impact of interprofessional education on collaborative practice and patient outcomes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2015. - PubMed
  2. Borras JM, Albreht T, Audisio R, et al. Policy statement on multidisciplinary cancer care. Eur J Cancer 2014;50(3):475-480. - PubMed
  3. Jakobsen F, Hansen J. Spreading the concept: an attempt to translate an interprofessional clinical placement across a Danish hospital. J Interprof Care 2014;28(5):407-412. - PubMed
  4. Canadian Interprofressional Health Collaborative (CIHC) 2010. National Interprofessional Competency Framework. University of British Columbia: Interprofessional Health Collaborative. https://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_Feb1210.pdf retrieved 27/11/18 - PubMed
  5. Thistlethwaite J, Kumar K, Moran M, Saunders R, Carr S. An exploratory review of pre-qualification interprofessional education evaluations. J Interprof Care 2015;29(4):292-297. - PubMed
  6. Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D. Effective interprofessional education. Argument, assumption & evidence. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing; 2005. - PubMed
  7. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005;15(9):1277-1288. - PubMed
  8. Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE). Interprofessional education. London, UK: CAIPE; 2002. - PubMed
  9. Short ME, Goetzel RZ, Pei X, Tabrizi MJ, Ozminkowski RJ, Gibson TB, Dejoy DM, Wilson MG. How accurate are self-reports? An analysis of self-reported healthcare utilization and absence when compared to administrative data. J Occup Environ Med 2009;51(7):786-796. - PubMed
  10. Reeves S, Boet S, Zierler B, Kitto S. Interprofessional education and practice guide No. 3: Evaluating interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2015;29(4):305-312. - PubMed
  11. Langlois S. Mapping current health professional curricula: identifying common topics for an integrated interprofessional education curriculum. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 2016;5:7-9. - PubMed
  12. Towle A, Godolphin W. Patients as educators: interprofessional learning for patient-centred care. Med Teach 2013;35(3):219-225. - PubMed
  13. Kent F, Hayes J, Glass S, Rees CE. Pre-registration interprofessional clinical education in the workplace: a realist review. Med Educ 2017;51(9):903-917. - PubMed
  14. Weinstein AR, Dolce MC, Koster M, Parikh R. Hamlyn E, A McNamara E, Carlson A, DiVall MV. Integration of systematic clinical interprofessional training in a student-faculty collaborative primary care practice. J Interprof Care 2018;32(1):104-107. - PubMed
  15. Hall LW, Zierler BK. Interprofessional education and practice guide no. 1: developing faculty to effectively facilitate interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2015;29(1):3-7. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types