Validity evidence for using an online peer-assessment tool (CATME) to assess individual contributions to interprofessional student teamwork in a longitudinal team-based learning course.

Assessing competence for teamwork is a challenging task. Neverthesless, health professions training programs are asked to assure collaborative competency in their learners. Interprofessional education (IPE) programs seek tools to assess team member effectiveness and demonstrate collaborative competency. The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME), originally developed for use in engineering, has been applied in various learning settings, with limited use in IPE. This paper presents validity evidence in 4 domains (content, response processes, internal structure, and relations to other variables) for the use of the CATME in a classroom-based IPE course taught with Team-Based Learning.

Towards an evolution of interprofessional practice: Lessons learned from two jazz piano trios.

Interprofessional practice has been of great interest to both health systems and educational institutions, but has been slow to develop in actual practice. Important efforts to speed adoption have mostly focused on changes in structure or educational interventions. It turns out that the field of jazz music was grappling with similar issues in the early 1960s. In this essay, we draw lessons from the experiences of jazz musicians during a time of transition. We conclude that significant cultural transformation, focused on two paradoxes, and the barriers and contexts that flow from them, will be necessary to achieve ideal interprofessional healthcare practice.

Promoting Interprofessional Team Development in Team-Based Learning (TBL) Through Coaching and the Team Development Measure (TDM).

BACKGROUND: Achieving effective team development for interprofessional Team-Based Learning (TBL) teams requires expansion of the traditional TBL faculty role of 'Guide on the Side' to include the roles of Interprofessional Education (IPE) Promoter and Team Coach as well as longitudinal teaming assessments. ACTIVITY: We describe 1) a novel conceptual framework of TBL faculty roles, 2) the faculty development approach supporting these expanded roles within IPE, and 3) use of the Team Development Measure (TDM). RESULTS: The expanded faculty roles were well received conceptually, faculty development supported role implementation, and TDM assessments demonstrated team improvements. CONCLUSION: An expansion of the traditional TBLfaculty role to include IPE Promotor and Team Coach and the use of longitudinal team assessments successfully supports pre-licensure interprofessional healthcare student teams' development over time.

Step Up-Not On-The Step 2 Clinical Skills Exam: Directors of Clinical Skills Courses (DOCS) Oppose Ending Step 2 CS.

Recently, a student-initiated movement to end the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 2 Clinical Skills and the Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination Level 2-Performance Evaluation has gained momentum. These are the only national licensing examinations designed to assess clinical skills competence in the stepwise process through which physicians gain licensure and certification. Therefore, the movement to end these examinations and the ensuing debate merit careful consideration. The authors, elected representatives of the Directors of Clinical Skills Courses, an organization comprising clinical skills educators in the United States and beyond, believe abolishing the national clinical skills examinations would have a major negative impact on the clinical skills training of medical students, and that forfeiting a national clinical skills competency standard has the potential to diminish the quality of care provided to patients. In this Perspective, the authors offer important additional background information, outline key concerns regarding the consequences of ending these national clinical skills examinations, and provide recommendations for moving forward: reducing the costs for students, exploring alternatives, increasing the value and transparency of the current examinations, recognizing and enhancing the strengths of the current examinations, and engaging in a national dialogue about the issue.

Results of an effort to integrate quality and safety into medical and nursing school curricula and foster joint learning.

Improvements in health care are slow, in part because doctors and nurses lack skills in quality improvement, patient safety, and interprofessional teamwork. This article reports on the Retooling for Quality and Safety initiative of the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, which sought to integrate improvement and patient safety into medical and nursing school curricula. In one academic year, 2009-10, the initiative supported new learning activities (87 percent of which were interprofessional, involving both medical and nursing students) in classrooms, simulation centers, and clinical care settings that involved 1,374 student encounters at six universities. The work generated insights-described in this article-into which learning goals require interprofessional education; how to create clinically based improvement learning for all students; and how to demonstrate the effects on students' behavior, organizational practice, and benefits to patients. A commonly encountered limiting factor for the programs was the lack of a critical mass of clinically based faculty members who were ready to teach about the improvement of care. What's more, the paucity of robust evaluation strategies for such programs suggests a future research agenda that deserves to be funded.

Changing and sustaining medical students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes about patient safety and medical fallibility.

PURPOSE: To study the effects of a patient safety and medical fallibility curriculum on second-year medical students at the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Medicine in 2003-2004. METHOD: Students completed a knowledge, skills, and attitudes questionnaire before the curriculum, after the final learning experience, and one year later. A 95% confidence interval (CI) for paired differences assessed change over time. At one year, students also responded to items about their use of the curriculum, error reporting, and disclosure experiences. RESULTS: Fifty three of 92 students (55%) completed the questionnaire at all three assessment points. Students' eight items and the calculated knowledge score improved after the curriculum but only seven of these improvements were sustained one year. Responses to seven items did not change and five changed in an undesired direction after the curriculum and/or after one year. Seventy two students completed the self-reported behavior questions at one year. More than half reported using what they learned in the curriculum. Although 76% of students reported observing an error, 71% of these disclosed an error to their peers, 56% to a resident, and 46% to faculty. Only 7% reported an error using our electronic error reporting system. CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum led to changes in second-year medical students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes, but not all of the changes were sustained at one year, were in the desired direction, or were supported by their self-reported behaviors. The extent to which other informal or hidden curriculum experiences reversed the gains and affected the changes at one year is unknown.