Dataset Information

Evaluating Interprofessional Team Performance: A Faculty Rater Tool.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Reliable team assessment has become a priority because of growing emphasis on interprofessional education and team-based care. Objective rating scales are needed to evaluate interprofessional student teams and individuals and provide real-time feedback.

Methods

In response to a need for behavioral rating scales, we modified the McMaster-Ottawa Scale from a 9-point to a 3-point scale and added descriptive behavioral anchors to define three levels of competency (i.e., below, at, and above expected). This modification is intended to provide consistent rating of individuals and teams in patient settings. We then developed a demonstration video using actors representing four professions to demonstrate the three levels of performance within the team. Our faculty rater tool, consisting of the modified scale and video, is designed to provide standardized ratings in interprofessional educational settings that involve patient care.

Results

We conducted training sessions with 40 faculty members from seven professions (medicine, dentistry, occupational therapy, nursing, pharmacy, physician assistant, and psychology) over a 2-year period. Immediately after each training session, two trained faculty observers rated interprofessional student teams as they conducted history and assessments on standardized patients. Observer scores were compared with one another and with standard expert ratings of the same teams. Trained observer ratings were consistent across the pairs. The observer training can be conducted within 60-90 minutes with the tool.

Discussion

Results of our implementation of the faculty rater tool confirm that the modified McMaster-Ottawa Scale is feasible to administer in clinical settings and that the demonstration video can be easily adopted for standardizing observer ratings.

SUBMITTER: Forest CP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6464413 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating Interprofessional Team Performance: A Faculty Rater Tool.

Forest Chrisptopher P CP Lie Désirée A DA Ma Sae Byul Sarah SBS

MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources 20160826

<h4>Introduction</h4>Reliable team assessment has become a priority because of growing emphasis on interprofessional education and team-based care. Objective rating scales are needed to evaluate interprofessional student teams and individuals and provide real-time feedback.<h4>Methods</h4>In response to a need for behavioral rating scales, we modified the McMaster-Ottawa Scale from a 9-point to a 3-point scale and added descriptive behavioral anchors to define three levels of competency (i.e., b ...[more]

PMID: 31008225

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:To build capacity in medicines management, the Uganda Ministry of Health introduced a nationwide supervision, performance assessment and recognition strategy (SPARS) in 2012. Medicines management supervisors (MMS) assess performance using 25 indicators to identify problems, focus supervision, and monitor improvement in medicines stock and storage management, ordering and reporting, and prescribing and dispensing. Although the indicators are well-recognized and used internationally, little was known about the reliability of these indicators. An initial assessment of inter-rater reliability (IRR), which measures agreement among raters (i.e., MMS), showed poor IRR; subsequently, we implemented efforts to improve IRR. The aim of this study was to assess IRR for SPARS indicators at two subsequent time points to determine whether IRR increased following efforts to improve reproducibility. Methods:IRR was assessed in 2011 and again after efforts to improve IRR in 2012 and 2013. Efforts included targeted training, providing detailed guidelines and job aids, and refining indicator definitions and response categories. In the assessments, teams of three MMS measured 24 SPARS indicators in 26 facilities. We calculated IRR as a team agreement score (i.e., percent of the MMS teams in which all three MMS had the same score). Two sample tests for proportions were used to compare IRR scores for each indicator, domain, and overall for the initial assessment and the following two assessments. We also compared the IRR scores for indicators classified as simple (binary) versus complex (multi-component). Logistic regression was used to identify supervisor group characteristics associated with domain-specific and overall IRR scores. Results:Initially only five (21%) indicators had acceptable reproducibility, defined as an IRR score???75%. At the initial assessment, prescribing quality indicators had the lowest and stock management indicators had the highest IRR. By the third IRR assessment, 12 (50%) indicators had acceptable reproducibility, and the overall IRR score improved from 57% to 72%. The IRR of simple indicators was consistently higher than that of complex indicators in the three assessment periods. We found no correlation between IRR scores and MMS experience or professional background. Conclusions:Assessments of indicator reproducibility are needed to improve IRR. Using simple indicators is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundWhen working in complex environments with critically ill patients, team performance is influenced by situation awareness in teams. Moreover, improved situation awareness in the teams will probably improve team and task performance. The aim of this study is to evaluate an educational programme on situation awareness for interprofessional teams at the intensive care units using team and task performance as outcomes.MethodTwenty interprofessional teams from the northern part of Sweden participated in this randomized controlled intervention study conducted in situ in two intensive care units. The study was based on three cases (cases 0, 1 and 2) with patients in a critical situation. The intervention group (n = 11) participated in a two-hour educational programme in situation awareness, including theory, practice, and reflection, while the control group (n = 9) performed the training without education in situation awareness. The outcomes were team performance (TEAM instrument), task performance (ABCDE checklist) and situation awareness (Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT)). Generalized estimating equation were used to analyse the changes from case 0 to case 2, and from case 1 to case 2.ResultsEducation in situation awareness in the intervention group improved TEAM leadership (p = 0.003), TEAM task management (p = 0.018) and TEAM total (p = 0.030) when comparing cases 1 and 2; these significant improvements were not found in the control group. No significant differences were observed in the SAGAT or the ABCDE checklist.ConclusionsThis intervention study shows that a 2-h education in situation awareness improved parts of team performance in an acute care situation. Team leadership and task management improved in the intervention group, which may indicate that the one or several of the components in situation awareness (perception, comprehension and projection) were improved. However, in the present study this potential increase in situation awareness was not detected with SAGAT. Further research is needed to evaluate how educational programs can be used to increase situation awareness in interprofessional ICU teams and to establish which components that are essential in these programs.Trial registrationThis randomized controlled trial was not registered as it does not report the results of health outcomes after a health care intervention on human participants.

Project description:IntroductionPrimary care is increasingly being confronted with complex health care demands stemming from both biomedical and psychosocial problems of people with chronic diseases. Interprofessional collaboration is needed to enhance person-centredness and coordinate care provision in an efficient manner, which should eventually result in high-quality and integrated care. In primary care, collaboration often occurs through periodic interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. We have developed a multifaceted programme (including a reflection framework, training activities and a toolbox) to enhance team functioning in terms of improved person-centredness and efficiency of meetings. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perceived suitability and potential impact of this programme. Eventually, findings of this evaluation should contribute to understanding the suitability of the programme and optimizing its design.MethodsA prospective process evaluation was conducted, using a mixed-methods approach. Six primary care IPTs participated. Data collection included observations of team meetings, semi-structured interviews with team chairpersons, a focus group meeting, and a questionnaire for all team members. Qualitative data were analysed using directed content analysis and quantitative data using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe results show that, on the whole, the programme was appreciated. Most progress was perceived regarding structure and organization. Chairs perceived increased awareness of person-centredness and team processes. They perceived the training activities as useful and instructive, and valued peer feedback and on-the-job coaching as the most effective strategies. Findings from the questionnaire showed a tendency in the desired direction for all variables.ConclusionTo conclude, the programme can be considered as a suitable approach for improving team functioning. However, enhancing person-centredness requires additional training/practice and on-the-job coaching. Lastly, the programme should be context-specific, flexible in use, and preferably delivered and mediated by an external facilitator at the workplace.

Dataset Information

Evaluating Interprofessional Team Performance: A Faculty Rater Tool.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Evaluating Interprofessional Team Performance: A Faculty Rater Tool.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure