背景与前景:卫生专业教师教授跨专业合作实践与质量改进的联系与区别——一个案例研究。

IF 2 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
Katherine Stevenson, Johan Thor, Marcel D'Eon, Linda A Headrick, Boel Andersson Gäre
{"title":"背景与前景:卫生专业教师教授跨专业合作实践与质量改进的联系与区别——一个案例研究。","authors":"Katherine Stevenson, Johan Thor, Marcel D'Eon, Linda A Headrick, Boel Andersson Gäre","doi":"10.1177/23821205251318925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite decades of effort, programs continue to struggle to integrate competencies related quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) into health professions education. Additionally, while QI and ICP may seem intuitively linked and there exists some examples of a coordinated approach, the literature regarding competencies, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), is still largely focused on QI and ICP as separate fields of knowledge and practice. This study explored distinctions and connections between quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) competency domains in health professions education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors used a qualitative case study approach with an instrumental case, that is, the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU), where QI and ICP were intentionally integrated as part of core curricula in health professional schools and programs. Eleven faculty members from medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and health care administration participated in interviews exploring their teaching choices in either classroom or clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study participants defined the goal of teaching QI and ICP as enabling learners to deliver safe and patient-centered care and described the knowledge and skills required for QI and the attitudes and skills required for ICP. Furthermore, they described the relationship between QI and ICP as one mediated by systems thinking, where ICP is backgrounded as a critical pre-requisite and QI is foregrounded as a vector for developing interprofessional competencies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MU case elucidates the potential synergies that occur when faculty address quality improvement and interprofessional collaborative practice competencies with an integrated approach that leverages connections, while also respecting distinctions. For health professions education programs looking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their curricular approach to these fields, it may be fruitful to consider ICP as background and QI as foreground, remembering that without each other, ICP risks losing meaning and QI risks losing impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":45121,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","volume":"12 ","pages":"23821205251318925"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811988/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Background and Foreground: Connections and Distinctions When Health Professions Faculty Teach Both Interprofessional Collaborative Practice and Quality Improvement-A Case Study.\",\"authors\":\"Katherine Stevenson, Johan Thor, Marcel D'Eon, Linda A Headrick, Boel Andersson Gäre\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23821205251318925\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Despite decades of effort, programs continue to struggle to integrate competencies related quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) into health professions education. Additionally, while QI and ICP may seem intuitively linked and there exists some examples of a coordinated approach, the literature regarding competencies, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), is still largely focused on QI and ICP as separate fields of knowledge and practice. This study explored distinctions and connections between quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) competency domains in health professions education.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors used a qualitative case study approach with an instrumental case, that is, the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU), where QI and ICP were intentionally integrated as part of core curricula in health professional schools and programs. Eleven faculty members from medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and health care administration participated in interviews exploring their teaching choices in either classroom or clinical settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Study participants defined the goal of teaching QI and ICP as enabling learners to deliver safe and patient-centered care and described the knowledge and skills required for QI and the attitudes and skills required for ICP. Furthermore, they described the relationship between QI and ICP as one mediated by systems thinking, where ICP is backgrounded as a critical pre-requisite and QI is foregrounded as a vector for developing interprofessional competencies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The MU case elucidates the potential synergies that occur when faculty address quality improvement and interprofessional collaborative practice competencies with an integrated approach that leverages connections, while also respecting distinctions. For health professions education programs looking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their curricular approach to these fields, it may be fruitful to consider ICP as background and QI as foreground, remembering that without each other, ICP risks losing meaning and QI risks losing impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45121,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"volume\":\"12 \",\"pages\":\"23821205251318925\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11811988/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251318925\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23821205251318925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:尽管经过了几十年的努力,项目仍在努力将与质量改进(QI)和跨专业合作实践(ICP)相关的能力整合到卫生专业教育中。此外,虽然QI和ICP似乎直观地联系在一起,并且存在一些协调方法的例子,但关于能力的文献,包括知识、技能和态度(KSAs),仍然主要关注QI和ICP作为独立的知识和实践领域。本研究探讨了卫生专业教育中质量改进(QI)与跨专业合作实践(ICP)能力域之间的区别和联系。方法:作者采用定性案例研究方法和工具性案例,即密苏里-哥伦比亚大学(MU),在那里,QI和ICP被有意地整合为卫生专业学校和项目的核心课程的一部分。来自医学、护理、药学和卫生保健管理的11位教师参与了访谈,探讨了他们在课堂或临床环境中的教学选择。结果:研究参与者将教学QI和ICP的目标定义为使学习者能够提供安全和以患者为中心的护理,并描述了QI所需的知识和技能以及ICP所需的态度和技能。此外,他们将QI和ICP之间的关系描述为一种以系统思维为中介的关系,其中ICP被认为是关键的先决条件,而QI被认为是发展跨专业能力的载体。结论:MU的案例阐明了当教师通过综合的方法解决质量改进和跨专业合作实践能力时,会产生潜在的协同效应,这种方法利用联系,同时也尊重差异。对于希望提高这些领域课程方法的有效性和效率的卫生专业教育项目来说,将ICP作为背景,QI作为前景可能是富有成效的,记住,如果没有彼此,ICP可能会失去意义,QI可能会失去影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Background and Foreground: Connections and Distinctions When Health Professions Faculty Teach Both Interprofessional Collaborative Practice and Quality Improvement-A Case Study.

Objectives: Despite decades of effort, programs continue to struggle to integrate competencies related quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) into health professions education. Additionally, while QI and ICP may seem intuitively linked and there exists some examples of a coordinated approach, the literature regarding competencies, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), is still largely focused on QI and ICP as separate fields of knowledge and practice. This study explored distinctions and connections between quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) competency domains in health professions education.

Methods: The authors used a qualitative case study approach with an instrumental case, that is, the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU), where QI and ICP were intentionally integrated as part of core curricula in health professional schools and programs. Eleven faculty members from medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and health care administration participated in interviews exploring their teaching choices in either classroom or clinical settings.

Results: Study participants defined the goal of teaching QI and ICP as enabling learners to deliver safe and patient-centered care and described the knowledge and skills required for QI and the attitudes and skills required for ICP. Furthermore, they described the relationship between QI and ICP as one mediated by systems thinking, where ICP is backgrounded as a critical pre-requisite and QI is foregrounded as a vector for developing interprofessional competencies.

Conclusions: The MU case elucidates the potential synergies that occur when faculty address quality improvement and interprofessional collaborative practice competencies with an integrated approach that leverages connections, while also respecting distinctions. For health professions education programs looking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their curricular approach to these fields, it may be fruitful to consider ICP as background and QI as foreground, remembering that without each other, ICP risks losing meaning and QI risks losing impact.

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 Medical Education and Curricular Development
Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信