An analysis of the process of collaboration for health care education across three Higher Education

1
An analysis of the process of collaboration for
health care education across three Higher
Education Institutions (HEIs)

• Maggie Cooper
• Director of Healthcare Education
• University College Plymouth St Mark St John
• Ruth Clemow
• Associate Dean, Quality and Learning
• University of Plymouth

2
Collaboration Partners

• University of Exeter
• Award for OT and SLT
• St Loyes School of Health Studies
• Delivered OT
• The College of St Mark and St John
• Delivered SLT
• University of Plymouth
• Awarded and about to deliver podiatry
• Somerset, Devon and Cornwall Workforce
  Development Confederation

3
Aims of Collaboration

• Meeting the Challenge (DH 2001)
• Consistent with NHSU aims
• Modernisation of workforce
• Better use of resources
• Recruitment - Provision of multiple site
  distributed learning opportunities
• Unified and joined-up approach to healthcare
  education within SW Peninsula

4
Sequence

• Initial discussions February 2001
• Informal collaborations OT/SLT 2001-2
• Bid to NHS Executive July 2001
• Phase 1 intake September 2002

5
Phases 1-3

• Phase 1 (2002-5)
• SLT, OT, Podiatry
• Phase 2 (2003-6)
• Nursing, Midwifery, Mental health
• Phase 3 (2004-7)
• Physiotherapy, Dietetics, Diagnostic radiography

6
Shared aspects of the curriculum

• 3 x 20 credit modules in Semester A Year 1
• Health sciences
• Introduction to biology and psychology
• Professional skills and contexts
• Introduction to sociology, communication
  skills, professional frameworks
• Evidence based practice
• Research methods, learning development

7
Interprofessional learning

• Shared scenario based study days using forum
  theatre or case based study.
• Post-placement debrief sessions
• Interprofessional student conference

8
Method of Analysis

• Student focus groups based at each of 2 sites of
  delivery (Patton 2002)
• Formal trans-institutional module review
• Framework
• Micro, meso, macro levels of analysis (DAmour and
  Oandasan, 2002)

9
Micro level analysis (staff and students)

• Terminology differences
• Staff priorities and emphasis within module
• Staff preferred teaching/assessment style and
  specialist input
• Workload distribution
• Difficult to ensure parity in marking and
  assessment
• Lack of preparedness for interprofessional
  teaching

10
Micro (students)

• Struggled to position themselves in the learning
  process
• Apparently exposed to material that was not
  central their perception of their professional
  need

11
Meso level analysis (programme)

• Identified commonalities between the 3 programmes
  and appropriate shared topics
• Differences in student entry profile leading to
  differences in expectations at Level 1-compromise
  in breadth and depth
• Impact of CFP on rest of programme
• Incompatible placement timetables
• Authority of module leadership and issues of
  module ownership
• Complex and slow process for making change

12
Macro level analysis (Institutional)

• 3 institutions with unique regulatory frameworks
• Memorandum of Agreement (signed 2002)
• Need for shared quality control mechanisms to
  ensure integrity of joint award (Plymouth and
  Exeter)
• Beginnings of a shared vision of good pedagogical
  and clinical practice
• Shared protocols and policies on assessment and
  module structure
• Shared technology. IT platform accessible to all
  staff and students
• Need to pursue a process for ensuring a shared
  vision for collaboration and interprofessional
  practice.

13
Recommendations- Micro

• 1. Terminology issues- lack of common language
  between students and staff
• possible solution through role modelling of IPL
  by team teaching however resource intensive
• conceptualise IPL for local curriculum design and
  delivery

14
Recommendations- Micro

• 2. Preferred teaching style and methods
• Focus teaching on the purpose of IPL- and fashion
  teaching and learning methods to intended
  outcomes
• 3. Teachers own preferred specialism-
• issue about teaching expert knowledge or
  facilitating learning
• 4. Facilitation to enable students to
  contextualise their learning into their own
  discipline

15
Recommendations - Meso

• 1 Entry requirements- no common platform of
  knowledge at entry therefore variability in
  learning needs
• Review entry knowledge, develop a range of
  resources to enable students to gain appropriate
  level
• or only put students together who have the same
  common platform/level of knowledge in certain
  subject areas

16
Recommendations - Meso

• 2. Content, sequence, priorities (relates to the
  profession specific perceived need and teacher
  preference), values in relation to specialist
  knowledge and beliefs about significance of
  subject matter
• Negotiate a model of content delivery for common
  learning topics
• Negotiate outcomes based on patient focused
  scenarios for IPL
• 3 Sharing the workload including module
  leadership across institutions
• Need clear strategy and funding to support and
  sustain IPL

17
Recommendations - Macro

• 1. 3 institutions with 3 unique regulatory
  frameworks and awards
• Joint award gained through Memorandum of
  agreement
• Shared quality protocols to operationalise fair
  and equitable processes

18
Recommendations - Macro

• 2.Fair and equal access to resources on all
  delivery sites and for all professions
  represented
• Requires shared resources and IT platform
• 3. Quality monitoring enhancement
• Responsive evaluation process for programme
  enhancement
• Develop and sustain a shared vision for
  collaboration through staff development
  activities

19
References

• Oandasan I Reeves S (2005a) Key elements for
  interprofessional education. Part 1 The learner,
  educator and the learning context. Journal of
  Interprofessional Care, Supplement 1 21-38
• Oandasan I Reeves S (2005b) Key elements for
  interprofessional education. Part 2 Factors,
  processes and ourtcomes. Journal of
  Interprofessional Care, Supplement 1 3948
• Patton MQ (2002) Qualitative research and
  evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks California,
  Sage.
• Steinert Y (2005) Learning together to teach
  together Interprofessional education and faculty
  development. Journal of Interprofessional Care,
  Supplement 1 60-75