Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
College of Health and Social Care, The University of Derby, Derby, UK.
Med Teach. 2020 Oct;42(10):1148-1153. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1795096. Epub 2020 Jul 24.
The increase in interprofessional models of collaborative practice and identification of health services as interprofessional organisations, sits somewhat awkwardly with traditional governance systems for both health services and educational institutions. Whereas health services have a primary focus on assuring competence and safety for health care practice, educational institutions have a primary focus on assuring academic standards within specific qualifications. Bridging the gap between these two systems with a workable option has proven challenging, especially in relation to interprofessional education (IPE).
Given the need to ensure 'work ready' graduates within a more interprofessional and collaborative workforce, it is important to review the quality assurance governance models that are in place and to consider which of these existing governance systems, if either, is the more appropriate model for enabling and supporting IPE.
This paper describes current issues in relation to governance for quality assurance, summarises the current state of research in the field and discusses potential governance options moving forward.
Given that existing governance models are not meeting the challenges of IPE, there is a need to achieve greater alignment between the academic and health service governing systems.
随着跨专业合作实践模式的增加，以及将卫生服务机构确定为跨专业组织，卫生服务和教育机构的传统治理系统有些不太协调。卫生服务的主要重点是确保医疗实践的能力和安全性，而教育机构的主要重点是确保特定资格内的学术标准。在这两个系统之间建立可行的桥梁选项证明具有挑战性，尤其是在涉及跨专业教育（IPE）方面。
鉴于需要确保在更具跨专业和协作性的劳动力中拥有“工作就绪”的毕业生，因此审查现有的质量保证治理模型并考虑这些现有治理系统中的哪一个（如果有的话）更适合为 IPE 提供支持和支持非常重要。
本文介绍了与质量保证治理相关的当前问题，总结了该领域的当前研究状况，并讨论了未来的潜在治理选择。
鉴于现有的治理模式无法应对 IPE 的挑战，需要在学术和卫生服务治理系统之间实现更大程度的一致性。
