Introductory, Experiential, Inter-professional Education (IPE) Teams: Concordance in Ratings of Team Performance by Students, Patients and Faculty Experts
Background
Introductory experiential interprofessional education (IPE) is necessary for health profession students to develop team skills. Meaningful engagement with patients provides an authentic experience for students, and patients can also provide feedback about team performance. The objective of this analysis was to determine the agreement of student and family/patient evaluation of team skills and to compare these to expert ratings. These analyses provide insight into future training for student and patient ratings of team performance.
Methodology
The Longitudinal Interprofessional Family-based Experience (LIFE) was a 10-hour experiential module delivered over 11 weeks. It involved 56 students in 10 teams with a family/patient in each IPE team. The family/patient was interviewed about their lived experiences in managing a chronic condition, as well as interacting with healthcare providers, healthcare system, and community organizations. Students attended a 2-hour opening session; conducted two team interviews; and attended a 2-hour closing session. Each interview involved pre-work, interview, and debrief. Students (n=52) completed 6 items of the Interprofessional Collaborator Assessment Rubric (ICAR) inventory after each interview to assess communication, collaboration, roles/responsibilities, collaborative client-family centered approach, and team functioning. Missing data for 5 students used last value carried forward/backward. Six of 10 family/patient participants completed an adapted ICAR about their student team’s performance after the second interview. Items were rated as 0=not observable, 1=minimal, 2=developing, 3=competent, and 4=mastery. The average team rating was compared to the average patient rating for interview two. Faculty expert ratings will be compared.
Results
The average student vs patient ratings across the six ICAR ratings were Team 1 (3.3±0.7 v 3.0±1.3), Team 2 (3.9±0.3 v 4.0±0), Team 4 (3.9±0.3 v 4.0±0), Team 5 (3.9±0.4 v 3.8±0.4), Team 6 (3.7±0.5 v 3.5±1.2), and Team 7 (3.7±0.5 v 3.6±0.5). Ranking of the 6 teams were the same for students and patients, except the 4th and 5th positions. Comparisons to expert ratings are underway.
Conclusion
Patients' ratings were consistent with students’ self ratings. Future analyses will compare these two assessments to faculty expert ratings.
Implications
Family/patients may provide feedback to improve student team performance, which may provide a mechanism to scale such an activity to many hundreds of students.
Description of how the poster fulfills the priority criteria, if applicable
Meaningful engagement of family/patient in delivering an authentic introductory experiential IPE module and examining how patients’ ratings can be used in assessment.
