Description and Evaluation of an Interprofessional Patient Safety Course for Health Professions and Related Sciences Students

Abstract

Objectives: The structure, process, and outcomes associated with planning, developing, and offering an interprofessional course on the foundations of patient safety is described, including how organizational, structural, cultural, and attitudinal barriers were overcome. Methods: Seventeen faculty members from 7 colleges and schools and medical center participatedVfrom the fields of decision sciences and systems, dentistry, medicine, law, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, social work, health care administration, and outcomes management in health systems. Student assessment included theme analysis of open-ended questions, descriptive analysis of multipleY response option questionnaires, and criterionbased assessment of student performance on case studies. Triangulation of student comments, final course evaluation, and student performance evaluations were performed to learn overarching themes of student experience with the course. Results: The students learned a different way of thinking, found the instructional design and active learning methods useful to learning, and felt prepared to solve problems in the future. Students believed that the content was an essential core knowledge for all health professionals (87%) and should be required for all health professions students (78%). Students achieved an application level of learning (77%) within the cognitive domain and the valuing level within the affective domain. Students agree (96%) that they can define and apply the basic principles and tenets of patient safety, including identification of tools needed to work effectively within the health system and to improve safety and strongly agree (100%) that they value patient safety as a professional practice framework. Conclusion: The universitywide implementation case may offer important lessons to others nationally in health care education.

Examining the nature of interprofessional interventions designed to promote patient safety: a narrative review

“…For example, studies that used interprofessional education activities involved interactive seminars, workshops or team-based simulation [20][21][22][23]. Often these educational interventions employed TeamSTEPPS or CRM (crisis resource management) approaches [24][25][26][27]. Studies reporting the use of interprofessional practice interventions tended to employ team checklists [28][29], team briefings [30,31] or patient safety rounds [32,33].…”

“…For studies reporting level 2a outcomes, these were typically linked to improved perceptions about safety culture [41] or enhanced attitudes towards teamwork [24]. For studies reporting level 2b outcomes, these generally focused on self-report changes in knowledge and/or skills related to collaborative and patient safety [42][43].…”

“…Those studies that employed multiple intervention methods blended, for example, team-based training with practice-based activities such as the use of a team briefing [34][35]. The duration of these interventions ranged widely from a few hours of participation in a team training workshop [24] to practice-based interventions which lasted over a number of months [36].…”

“…Surveys were the most popular form of data used in the included studies, with the Safety Attitude Questionnaire [37], Teamwork and Safety Climate Survey [38] and the TeamSTEPPS Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire [24] being used most frequently. Table 5 displays the range of different outcomes reported in the included studies.…”

Can We Learn in the Sandbox Together? Interprofessional CaseConferences as Facilitation Tools

“…Many different configurations of trainees and methods have been used, including case studies, various types of high-and low-fidelity simulation and voluntary interprofessional clinical experiences. The varied participant group sizes worked on an array of simple to complex cases which have been described in the literature [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. Measurement of the effects of these trainings has been sparse and difficult to capture in terms of clinical outcomes, but there have been attitude differences shown in the literature [11,12].…”