Shedding More Light on the State of Interprofessional Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
To the Editor: On behalf of the University of British Columbia (UBC), one of the academic institutions cited in the most recent article by Drs. Paradis and Whitehead, “Beyond the Lamppost: A Proposal for a Fourth Wave of Education for Collaboration,”1 we would like to clarify misconceptions about the implementation of interprofessional education (IPE) at our institution and present our current work, which we argue places us firmly in the fourth wave of education for collaboration. The authors cite the work of Dr. John McCreary at UBC as an example of a failed attempt during the first wave of IPE. Although UBC’s Division of Interprofessional Education was not sustainable, it laid the foundation for decades of subsequent collaboration across the health professional programs at UBC through the College of Health Disciplines (2001–2015) and now the Office of UBC Health situated within the provost’s portfolio (2015–present). This evolution has firmly rooted collaboration within the health programs at UBC and has allowed us to move into what we would consider the fourth wave of IPE, which we argue is “integration” and includes a number of the elements proposed by Drs. Paradis and Whitehead. Our work at UBC is anchored in the provincial priority of team-based care and is developed in partnership with patients, health authorities, government, and students. The evolution of health care towards an integrated system focused on individual and community well-being is a challenge of global importance and urgency; supporting this transformation is a strategic priority for UBC. Under the umbrella of UBC Health, our programs use an integrated approach to health professional education, which focuses on learning opportunities that address complex areas of health care that benefit from a collaborative approach (ethics, Indigenous cultural safety, e-health, professionalism, and resilience). Technology supports learning that is unique to each profession and provides economies of scale for foundational knowledge common to all programs, while learning is enhanced by interprofessional components that bring together students for collaborative sessions interspersed throughout their programs. This integrated approach has moved IPE from an add-on that was often extracurricular and focused on discreet competencies, to being a part of students’ program requirements, replacing or supplementing current learning that is contextualized within the broader curriculum. Finally, the integrated approach to health professions education at UBC is supported by a unique organizational model with a governance structure that ensures that collaboration is at the heart of our daily operations. Louise Nasmith, MDCM, MEd, FCFP, FRCPSC(Hon)Professor, Office of UBC Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; [email protected] Victoria Wood, MACurriculum manager, Office of UBC Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Carrie Krekoski, RDH, BDSc (Dental Hygiene), MEdPractice education manager, Office of UBC Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,083 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,013 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,027 | 0,054 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».