Alsane Danah, Lockeman Kelly S, Mays Darcy P, Dow Alan, Donohoe Krista L, Kirkwood Cynthia K, Slattum Patricia
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Health Sciences Center, College of Pharmacy, Kuwait University, Jabriya, Kuwait.
VCU Center for Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Care, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, USA.
J Interprof Care. 2025 Jan 16:1-9. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2025.2452975.
Healthcare practitioners must be trained to collaborate in a dynamic environment where patients are complex and teams can change from day-to-day, but choosing the right measures to assess the effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork among learners is challenging. This study used measures representing four different perspectives to assess student teams in a practice setting where team composition varied each day. We tested the strength of the relationships between these measures, and we examined the impact of additional variables on each measure. Participants were students from different health professions at a single university and patients in a community-based wellness program. We sampled 100 wellness visits where an interprofessional student team met with a patient, and we assessed team effectiveness using student perceptions of their team, patient ratings, observer ratings, and faculty assessments of team healthcare plans for the patient. We calculated bivariate correlations between the four measures and used regression analyses to assess the impact of predictors including student, patient, and clinic/site characteristics, on each measure of team effectiveness. There were small but significant negative correlations between the assessments of faculty and observers ( = - 0.23), as well as between faculty and patients ( = - 0.14). Conversely, a small but significant positive correlation was found between the assessments of patients and observers ( = 0.15). Among the regression models, faculty and patient ratings of team effectiveness were more strongly related to the predictors measured (R-squared = 53.6% and 41.7%, respectively). Patient age and number of clinic visits, team size, and clinic site were significant factors for predicting team effectiveness across the two measures. Our findings provide evidence that different perspectives of team effectiveness measure different constructs. While all approaches have value, in IPE practice settings, team effectiveness should be evaluated with multiple measures to understand performance and identify opportunities for improvement. Teamwork in dynamic healthcare environments is complex, and simple measurement approaches may mischaracterize learning and clinical outcomes.
医疗从业者必须接受培训，以便在一个动态环境中开展协作，在这个环境中，患者情况复杂，团队构成可能每天都有所变化，但选择合适的措施来评估学习者之间跨专业团队合作的有效性具有挑战性。本研究采用代表四种不同视角的措施，在团队构成每天都不同的实践环境中评估学生团队。我们测试了这些措施之间关系的强度，并研究了其他变量对每项措施的影响。参与者是一所大学中来自不同健康专业的学生以及一个社区健康项目中的患者。我们抽取了100次跨专业学生团队与患者会面的健康诊疗案例，并使用学生对其团队的看法、患者评分、观察者评分以及教师对患者团队医疗计划的评估来评估团队有效性。我们计算了这四项措施之间的双变量相关性，并使用回归分析来评估包括学生、患者和诊所/地点特征在内的预测因素对每项团队有效性措施的影响。教师评估与观察者评估之间存在小而显著的负相关（r = -0.23），教师评估与患者评估之间也存在小而显著的负相关（r = -0.14）。相反，患者评估与观察者评估之间存在小而显著的正相关（r = 0.15）。在回归模型中，教师和患者对团队有效性的评分与所测量的预测因素的相关性更强（调整后R方分别为53.6%和41.7%）。患者年龄、就诊次数、团队规模和诊所地点是预测这两项措施下团队有效性的重要因素。我们的研究结果表明，团队有效性的不同视角衡量的是不同的结构。虽然所有方法都有价值，但在跨专业教育实践环境中，应使用多种措施来评估团队有效性，以了解表现并确定改进机会。动态医疗环境中的团队合作很复杂，简单的测量方法可能会错误地描述学习和临床结果。
