A 3-year qualitative evaluation of interprofessional team-based clinical education at an Australian dental school.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: This article describes a qualitative evaluation of interprofessional (IP) team-based treatment planning (TBTP) involving dentistry, oral health therapy, dental prosthetics, and dental technology students at the Griffith University School of Dentistry and Oral Health (DOH). Using the same data from a recently published article that looked solely at the quantitative evaluation of TBTP, this article focuses on the qualitative evaluation of TBTP. This evaluation explores the contextual meaning related to the previously published aspects of TBTP that contributed positively toward oral health students' IP clinical learning and identifies themes reflecting students' IP clinical experience. METHODS: Thematic analysis of transcripts from nine focus groups, comprised of 46 final year students and open-ended questions collected from 544 students through an online instrument from 2012 to 2014, explored the question: "What is the contribution of IP student team-based processes on students' perceptions of IP learning and practice at DOH?" RESULTS: Responses from online participants and student focus groups revealed three major themes: useful role learning, communication confidence, and pro-active collaborative teamwork. Throughout each of these themes, students stated they possessed a confidence in collaborating with other oral health students as exhibited through an understanding of profession-specific and IP roles, self-assurance in communicating, and teamwork skills. CONCLUSION: Aspects of TBTP that contributed positively toward students' IP clinical learning and practice were meaningfully identified.

A 3-year quantitative evaluation of interprofessional team-based clinical education at an Australian dental school.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Clinical educational challenges led to the Griffith University School of Dentistry and Oral Health (DOH) introducing interprofessional team-based treatment planning (TBTP). This paper evaluates the interprofessional contribution made to student clinical learning and experience among dentistry, oral health therapy, dental prosthetics, and dental technology students. METHODS: A mixed methodology approach targeting 845 students collected data annually employing a prevalidated online instrument from 2012 to 2014 to answer the question: "What is the contribution of interprofessional student team-based processes on students' perceptions of interprofessional practice at DOH?" RESULTS: A representative study sample with a 64.4% response rate (N = 544) reported TBTP creating a supportive environment for interprofessional clinical learning. Significant improvements in learning shared across disciplines indicated improvements in mutual respect, understanding roles, and constructive communication enhancing teamwork. There were increasing significant correlations between shared learning and positive clinical experiences from 2012 (r = .642, p < .000) to 2013 (r = .678, p < .000) and 2014 (r = .719, p < .000). A combination of TBTP predictors accounted for 53% of the variance in clinical learning and experience in 2014 compared to 40% in 2012. CONCLUSION: Learning with other students, developing teamwork abilities, improved communication skills, and respect for other oral health professions were aspects of TBTP that positively impacted clinical learning and practice at DOH. Further study would assist to determine specific elements that made the greatest contribution to student learning experiences.

Interprofessional education in clinical practice: not a single vaccine.

In increasingly complex health service environments, the quality of teamwork and co-operation between doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, is 'under the microscope'. Interprofessional education (IPE), a process whereby health professionals learn 'from, with and about each other', is advocated as a response to widespread calls for improved communication and collaboration between healthcare professionals.

Making cars and making health care: a critical review.

The uncritical adoption of production-line manufacturing practices (such as "lean thinking") into work design processes in hospitals creates a fundamental tension between the production of health care and protection of the patient. There is scant evidence that re-engineering health care services in line with industrial models increases their efficiency. Indeed, reducing the richness of health care practice to impoverished snippets of work may add to the problems of hospital misadventure and inefficiency rather than solve them.

The experience of Australian project leaders in encouraging practitioners to adopt research evidence in their clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a qualitative program evaluation which sought to identify factors that either assist or impede the adoption of clinical evidence in everyday practice. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen Australian projects were funded in a competitive grant program to adopt innovative strategies to improve the uptake of research evidence in everyday clinical practice. Project leaders' reports were analysed to collate common themes related to 1) critical elements in successful application of research knowledge, 2) barriers to implementing evidence, and 3) lessons for other organisations that might implement a similar project. RESULTS: Despite the diversity of the methods used to establish projects and the range of topics and clinical settings, many similarities were identified in the perceived critical success elements, barriers, and lessons for adopting clinical evidence. Eighteen themes emerged across the data including: leadership support; key stakeholder involvement; practice changes; communication; resources; education of staff; evaluation of outcomes; consumers; knowledge gaps; adoption/implementing staff; access to knowledge; risk assessment; collaboration; effectiveness of clinical research evidence; structure/organisation; cultural barriers; previous experiences; and information technology. CONCLUSION: Leaders of projects to adopt evidence in clinical practice identified barriers, critical success elements and lessons that impacted on their projects. A range of influences on the adoption of evidence were identified, and this knowledge can be used to assist others undertaking similar projects.