Comparing the Efficacy of Interprofessional versus Single Profession Teams in Promoting Quality Conversations About Advance Care Planning

Sabina Kupershmidt, Helene Hegge, Haifa AbouSamra, Cheryl Fischbach, Carla Dieter, Whitney Lucas-Molitor
{"title":"Comparing the Efficacy of Interprofessional versus Single Profession\n Teams in Promoting Quality Conversations About Advance Care Planning","authors":"Sabina Kupershmidt, Helene Hegge, Haifa AbouSamra, Cheryl Fischbach, Carla Dieter, Whitney Lucas-Molitor","doi":"10.7710/2641-1148.2177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE The study compared the impact of educating learners in interprofessional versus single profession teams using the Respecting Choices First Steps® Advance Care Planning training method. METHODS Learners in an academic program were grouped into either interprofessional or single profession teams and participated separately in Respecting Choices® Facilitator training. A PICOT question was formulated: In ACP facilitators and their clients what is the effect of an ACP educational initiative on attitudes, knowledge and behaviors when the initiative is delivered by an interprofessional compared to a single profession team of learners during a year-long pilot study? RESULTS 1. Confidence in the subject matter increased in ACP facilitators pre- to post test. 2. Interprofessional knowledge and attitudes were not different in the two teams. 3. Clients attending ACP workshops improved their scores pre- to post workshop but no difference was observed between clients of the interprofessional and the single profession team. CONCLUSION Preliminary steps beyond grouping learners into teams consisting of multiple professions will be required to impact their effectiveness over a single profession team.","PeriodicalId":320540,"journal":{"name":"Health, Interprofessional Practice and Education","volume":"115 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health, Interprofessional Practice and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7710/2641-1148.2177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PURPOSE The study compared the impact of educating learners in interprofessional versus single profession teams using the Respecting Choices First Steps® Advance Care Planning training method. METHODS Learners in an academic program were grouped into either interprofessional or single profession teams and participated separately in Respecting Choices® Facilitator training. A PICOT question was formulated: In ACP facilitators and their clients what is the effect of an ACP educational initiative on attitudes, knowledge and behaviors when the initiative is delivered by an interprofessional compared to a single profession team of learners during a year-long pilot study? RESULTS 1. Confidence in the subject matter increased in ACP facilitators pre- to post test. 2. Interprofessional knowledge and attitudes were not different in the two teams. 3. Clients attending ACP workshops improved their scores pre- to post workshop but no difference was observed between clients of the interprofessional and the single profession team. CONCLUSION Preliminary steps beyond grouping learners into teams consisting of multiple professions will be required to impact their effectiveness over a single profession team.
跨专业团队与单一专业团队促进关于预先护理计划的高质量对话的效果比较
目的:本研究采用尊重选择的第一步®预先护理计划培训方法,比较跨专业和单一专业团队对学习者进行教育的影响。方法:学习学术课程的学生被分成跨专业或单一专业小组,分别参加“尊重选择”(respect Choices®Facilitator)培训。提出了一个PICOT问题:在为期一年的试点研究中,由跨专业人员提供的ACP教育倡议与由单一专业学习者团队提供的ACP教育倡议相比,对ACP促进者及其客户的态度、知识和行为的影响是什么?结果1。在ACP引导者的前后测试中,对主题的信心增加。2. 两个团队的跨专业知识和态度没有差异。3.参加ACP工作坊的客户在工作坊前和工作坊后的得分均有所提高,但跨专业团队和单一专业团队的客户之间没有差异。除了将学习者分组到由多个专业组成的团队之外,还需要采取初步步骤来影响他们在单一专业团队中的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信