The effect of an educational programme on attitudes of nurses and medical residents towards the benefits of positive communication and collaboration.
ABSTRACT This article is a report of a study to determine the effect of an educational programme and to follow up weekly meetings on nurses and medical resident's attitudes towards positive communication and collaboration.
Clear and appropriate communication and interdisciplinary collaboration is critical to the delivery of quality care. Collaborative practice among all healthcare professionals creates a positive work environment, decreases costs, improves job satisfaction among nurses and improves patient care, as well as decreasing patient morbidity and mortality. Poor communication and lack of teamwork or collaboration have been cited as persistent problems in healthcare.
The study was conducted in 2008 - 2009 at a hospital where a new medical residency programme was beginning and nurses had no prior experience working with medical residents. A quasi-experimental pre test, post-test design was used. The Jefferson Scale of Attitudes towards Physician-Nurse Collaboration and the Communication, Collaboration and Critical Thinking for Quality Patient Outcomes Survey tool measured the attitudes of 68 nurses and 47 medical residents in the areas of positive communication and collaboration.
The study demonstrates that a formal educational programme and follow-up discussions improved the attitudes of both nurses and medical residents on the Jefferson scale (medical residents t = 4·68, P = 0·001, nurses t = 4·37, P = 0·001) and on the communication scale (medical residents t = 4·23, P = 0·001, nurses t = 4·13, P = 0·001).
Continuing education for nurses, medical residents and other healthcare providers may assist in developing positive communication styles and promote collegiality and team work.
- SourceAvailable from: Joseph A Zorek[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objectives. To describe the development and validation of an instrument designed to assess student perceptions of physician-pharmacist interprofessional clinical education (SPICE). Methods. Faculty members from pharmacy and medical schools developed items for the instrument, and 179 medical and pharmacy students completed the scale. Psychometric properties, including reliability and construct validity, were assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Results. The final instrument consisted of 10 items with 3 subscales measuring student perceptions of interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice, roles/responsibilities for collaborative practice, and patient outcomes from collaborative practice. Validity and reliability of the instrument were demonstrated. Conclusion. The SPICE instrument demonstrated promise as a valid and reliable measure of pharmacy and medical student perceptions of interprofessional clinical education. SPICE may serve as a useful instrument for educational researchers in assessing the impact of interprofessional educational experiences.American journal of pharmaceutical education 11/2013; 77(9):190. · 1.21 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Student Perceptions of Physician-Pharmacist Interprofessional Clinical Education (SPICE) instrument contains 10 items, 3 factors (interprofessional teamwork and team-based practice, roles/responsibilities for collaborative practice, and patient outcomes from collaborative practice), and utilizes a five-point response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Given the SPICE instrument's demonstrated validity and reliability, the objective of this study was to evaluate whether it was capable of measuring changes in medical (MS) and pharmacy students' (PS) perceptions following an interprofessional education (IPE) experience.BMC Medical Education 05/2014; 14(1):101. · 1.41 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Valid teamwork assessment is imperative to determine physician competency and optimize patient outcomes. We systematically reviewed published instruments assessing teamwork in undergraduate, graduate, and continuing medical education in general internal medicine and all medical subspecialties. We searched MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-process, CINAHL and PsycINFO from January 1979 through October 2012, references of included articles, and abstracts from four professional meetings. Two content experts were queried for additional studies. Included studies described quantitative tools measuring teamwork among medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing physicians on single or multi-professional (interprofessional) teams. Instrument validity and study quality were extracted using established frameworks with existing validity evidence. Two authors independently abstracted 30 % of articles and agreement was calculated. Of 12,922 citations, 178 articles describing 73 unique teamwork assessment tools met inclusion criteria. Interrater agreement was intraclass correlation coefficient 0.73 (95 % CI 0.63-0.81). Studies involved practicing physicians (142, 80 %), residents/fellows (70, 39 %), and medical students (11, 6 %). The majority (152, 85 %) assessed interprofessional teams. Studies were conducted in inpatient (77, 43 %), outpatient (42, 24 %), simulation (37, 21 %), and classroom (13, 7 %) settings. Validity evidence for the 73 tools included content (54, 74 %), internal structure (51, 70 %), relationships to other variables (25, 34 %), and response process (12, 16 %). Attitudes and opinions were the most frequently assessed outcomes. Relationships between teamwork scores and patient outcomes were directly examined for 13 (18 %) of tools. Scores from the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and Team Climate Inventory have substantial validity evidence and have been associated with improved patient outcomes. Review is limited to quantitative assessments of teamwork in internal medicine. There is strong validity evidence for several published tools assessing teamwork in internal medicine. However, few teamwork assessments have been directly linked to patient outcomes.Journal of General Internal Medicine 12/2013; · 3.28 Impact Factor