Dr. Thistlethwaite is adjunct professor and consultant in interprofessional education, University of Technology, Sydney, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia. Dr. Forman is director of interactive leadership and management development and adjunct professor, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. Dr. Matthews is associate professor, Ageing, Work and Health Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Dr. Rogers is professor of medical education, deputy head (learning and teaching) of the School of Medicine, and program lead in interprofessional learning, Health Institute for the Development of Education and Scholarship, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Australia. Dr. Steketee is dean for teaching and learning, School of Medicine Fremantle, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Australia. Ms. Yassine is manager, Office of Learning and Teaching's Project, Curriculum Renewal for Interprofessional Education in Health, Centre for Research in Learning and Change, University of Technology, Sydney, Ultimo, Sydney, Australia.
Acad Med. 2014 Jun;89(6):869-75. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000249.
Health professionals need preparation and support to work in collaborative practice teams, a requirement brought about by an aging population and increases in chronic and complex diseases. Therefore, health professions education has seen the introduction of interprofessional education (IPE) competency frameworks to provide a common lens through which disciplines can understand, describe, and implement team-based practices. Whilst an admirable aim, often this has resulted in more confusion with the introduction of varying definitions about similar constructs, particularly in relation to what IPE actually means.The authors explore the nature of the terms competency and framework, while critically appraising the concept of competency frameworks and competency-based education. They distinguish between competencies for health professions that are profession specific, those that are generic, and those that may be achieved only through IPE. Four IPE frameworks are compared to consider their similarities and differences, which ultimately influence how IPE is implemented. They are the Interprofessional Capability Framework (United Kingdom), the National Interprofessional Competency Framework (Canada), the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (United States), and the Curtin University Interprofessional Capability Framework (Australia).The authors highlight the need for further discussion about establishing a common language, strengthening ways in which academic environments work with practice environments, and improving the assessment of interprofessional competencies and teamwork, including the development of assessment tools for collaborative practice. They also argue that for IPE frameworks to be genuinely useful, they need to augment existing curricula by emphasizing outcomes that might be attained only through interprofessional activity.
卫生专业人员需要在协作实践团队中做好准备并获得支持，这是人口老龄化和慢性及复杂疾病增多带来的要求。因此，卫生专业教育引入了跨专业教育（IPE）能力框架，为各学科提供了一个共同的视角，使它们能够理解、描述和实施以团队为基础的实践。尽管这一目标值得称赞，但这往往导致更多的混乱，因为引入了不同的定义来描述相似的结构，特别是在 IPE 的实际含义方面。作者探讨了能力和框架这两个术语的性质，同时批判性地评价了能力框架和基于能力的教育的概念。他们区分了针对特定专业的卫生专业人员的能力、通用能力和只有通过 IPE 才能获得的能力。比较了四个 IPE 框架，以考虑它们的相似之处和不同之处，这最终影响了 IPE 的实施方式。它们是联合王国的跨专业能力框架、加拿大的国家跨专业能力框架、美国的跨专业协作实践核心能力以及澳大利亚的科廷大学跨专业能力框架。作者强调需要进一步讨论建立共同语言、加强学术环境与实践环境合作的方式，以及改进对跨专业能力和团队合作的评估，包括为协作实践开发评估工具。他们还认为，为了使 IPE 框架真正有用，它们需要通过强调只有通过跨专业活动才能实现的成果来补充现有课程。
