An overview of pedagogy and organisation in clinical interprofessional training units in Sweden and Denmark

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to provide an overview of the organization and pedagogy in Swedish and Danish interprofessional training units (ITUs) and to synthesize empirical findings from Swedish and Danish ITUs published in peer review journals. A questionnaire concerning organization and pedagogy was sent to twenty Swedish and Danish ITUs. After a bibliographic search aimed to find empirical studies from ITUs, twenty Swedish and eight Danish studies were included in the review. The questionnaires results showed that despite different wording, the overall aims for the ITUs were to provide students with the possibility of uniprofessional learning, interprofessional learning, and strengthening of professional identity. Furthermore, it appeared that there were different organizational and pedagogical approaches. The review revealed that differences in clinical tutors' affiliation and presence in the ITU were challenging. Also different pedagogical approaches were discussed. However, all articles showed that the goals for the ITUs in general were fulfilled. There is basis therefore to recommend the establishment of future clinical ITUs with the patient in the core and with the use of a student activating approach.

Heidelberger Interprofessionelle Ausbildungsstation (HIPSTA): a practice- and theory-guided approach to development and implementation of Germany’s first interprofessional training ward

“…We searched the literature to identify previous IPTWs in order to generate ideas for our IPTW. We found multiple descriptions of IPTWs in different countries and specialities [10], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. However, the organisation and set-up of these IPTWs differs somewhat and was not always well described.…”

“…Interprofessional training wards (IPTW) describe a special form of undergraduate IPE/IPL/IPCP intervention which aim to enable students/trainees from different health professions to work together in interprofessional (IP) teams in order to manage the full responsibility for the medical treatment and rehabilitation of real life patients in an inpatient-hospital setting and at the same time gain interprofessional competencies [10]. Since their first description more than two decades ago in Sweden [11], multiple IPTWs have been established mainly in Scandinavia (reviewed in [10]) and other countries [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].…”

“…Since their first description more than two decades ago in Sweden [11], multiple IPTWs have been established mainly in Scandinavia (reviewed in [10]) and other countries [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. To date training wards have been piloted in Germany for medical students (Witten-Herdecke) [23], [24] and for nursing students, however an IPTW focussing on interprofessional competencies has not been established in Germany so far.…”

“…To date training wards have been piloted in Germany for medical students (Witten-Herdecke) [23], [24] and for nursing students, however an IPTW focussing on interprofessional competencies has not been established in Germany so far. Furthermore, IPTWs have been implemented across various medical disciplines ranging from internal medicine, geriatrics, obstetric to palliative care with a clear emphasis on orthopaedics [10]. To our knowledge none of the published IPTWs ever addressed the postoperative care of patients undergoing major abdominal surgery.…”

“…First, this might be due to the very nature of IPTWs in which IPE, IPL and IPCP elements are closely intertwined as well as the lack of scientific rigor of studies within the interprofessional field [25], [26]. Existing studies within IPE have focused on learners satisfaction, acquisition of IP knowledge or modification of attitudes (level 1,2a/b outcomes according to the Joint Evaluation Team typology for outcomes of IPE [27]), rather than investigating behavioural changes (level 3), changes in organizational practice (level 4a) or benefits for patients (level 4b) [10]. Second, several authors have claimed that the atheoretical approach to IPE/IPL/IPCP research is responsible for these shortcomings and have called for more rigorous IP research by including psychological, behavioural and sociological models in the design and evaluation of IPE/IPL/IPCP [28], [29].…”