Using learning theory, interprofessional facilitation competencies, and behavioral indicators to evaluate facilitator training

Abstract

Despite the increasing need for faculty and preceptors skilled in interprofessional facilitation (IPF), the relative novelty of the field poses a challenge to the development and evaluation of IPF programs. We use learning theory and IPF competencies with associated behavioral indicators to develop and evaluate six key messages in IPF training and experience. Our mixed methods approach included two phases: quantitative data collection with embedded qualitative data, followed by qualitative data collection in explanatory sequential fashion. This enabled triangulated analyses of both data types and of facilitation behaviors from facilitator and student perspectives. Results indicate the competency-based training was effective. Facilitators felt comfortable performing behaviors associated with IPF competencies; student observations of those behaviors supported facilitator self-reported performance. Overall, students perceived more facilitation opportunities than facilitators. Findings corroborate the importance of recruiting seasoned facilitators and establishing IPF guidelines that acknowledge variable team dynamics and help facilitators recognize teachable moments.

The 2019 WACEM expert document on the framework for setting up a simulation centre

“…[2829] At some point in time, the center will need to review the need for expansion to reach out to a greater diversity of learners and have a greater repertoire of competencies, to have more impact. Overall, with the competitive academic and clinical environment, it is also necessary to ensure retention of talent among faculty and staff.…”

“…A word of caution in the planning would be that simulation-based research must reflect, as close as possible, what actually happens in the real clinical setting in order to be meaningful. [2829] the clinical performance.…”

Educators working together for interprofessional education: From “fragmented beginnings” to being “intentionally interprofessional”

“…Egan-Lee et al, 2011;Cragg, Jelley, Burrows et al 2013), the skills and competencies educators require for interprofessional facilitation (e.g. LeGros, Amerongen, Cooley, & Schloss, 2015;Sargeant, Hill, & Breau, 2010), or educators' perceptions regarding key factors in IPE (e.g. Loversidge & Demb, 2015).…”

Training students as interprofessional learning facilitators: An exploratory study highlighting the need to build confidence

“…Therefore, facilitators need to be able to create a 'safe environment' in which students can -explicitly or implicitly -explore their professional identities without descending into conflict, or 'professional tribalism' (Hawkes, Nunney & Lindqvist, 2013). Indeed, complexities around professional identities are likely to exacerbate facilitators' uncertainty about when to interject and how best to deal with potential disagreements within the group (LeGros, Amerongen, Cooley, Ernest & Schloss, 2015;Hammick, Freeth, Koppel, Reeves & Barr, 2007;Lindqvist & Reeves 2007;Freeth & Reeves 2004).…”

“…The complexity of IPL facilitation highlights the need for appropriate preparation of IPL facilitators and evidence shows that the success of IPL can be undermined by using unskilled, or unprepared, facilitators (Milot, Museux & Careau, 2017;LeGros et al, 2015). However, and important to this initiative, evidence also show that involving students as facilitators can have a uniquely positive impact on the process of fostering a cultural change towards collaborative working (Lehrer et al, 2015).…”