The international literature underpinning collaborative practice within practice based experiential learning for the initial education of student pharmacists: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Interprofessional team working within healthcare [1] enables the use of complementary areas of expertise. Collaborative practice (CP) builds on this and enhances recognition and respect for such expertise which facilitates professional synergy. Development of CP needs to be built into initial education programmes and there is global progress. [2] Further, a WHO Framework highlighted the importance of courses developing CP in experiential learning (EL) environments. [1] There is need to develop both CP and EL within pharmacy courses to meet governmental and regulatory aspirations around the clinical and prescribing roles of pharmacists. Aim The aim of this part of a scoping review was to describe the different characteristics of the international literature around the development, implementation and evaluation of CP within practice based EL for initial education of student pharmacists. Methods The six-stage Arksey and O’Malley framework and the PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews for reporting were followed. Eligibility criteria were defined (Table 1) and electronic searches of relevant databases (Medline, IPA, CINAHL and Google Scholar) conducted from inception to April 2020. MeSH terms and other relevant subject headings and text words were used. First stage involved screening titles / abstracts and second stage involved review of full text articles. A charting tool was developed and used to extract data on: country, study design, methods of evaluation, sector of practice, stage of students, professional groups involved, monitoring and assessment and scope for development. Findings were presented as a descriptive narrative summary. All steps involved independent checks by two of the review team. Results Twenty-eight papers were included with most from the USA (16 papers), with the remainder from Australia (5 papers), UK (5 Papers), Canada and the Netherlands (1 paper each). The majority of papers described quantitative methods using a wide variety of published (some validated) scales (20 scales including RIPLS, SPICE, CPAT) and a number of bespoke survey tools. The main focus was at ‘Kirkpatrick model of educational evaluation’ level 3 – with 13 papers focussing on changes to professional behaviours. Papers focussed on either hospital (12 papers) or primary care initiatives (12 papers) with the remaining four describing cross-sectoral settings. Only 6 papers stated that they focussed on specific healthcare specialities and the remainder were in general medical facilities. The nature of initiatives and activities varied with a predominance of focus to include later years of study. Only 3 papers included only pharmacy and medicine students.. Detailed information was lacking on methods of student assessment: some reported this involved reflection, with limited reporting of tools to assess competencies. A wide array of further research proposals was articulated. Conclusion This scoping review highlights the range of work already carried out. The diversity highlights the need for consideration of commonality in the nature of activity and tools to evaluate outcomes to ensure transferability to practice. There are many challenges influencing further development and implementation of CP. Facilitating matters by using the evidence base to add to existing placements without restructuring curricula across courses / institutions has been proposed by some authors. References 1. Framework [Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice (WHO/HRH/HPN/10.3). World Health Organization 2010, Geneva 27, Switzerland, Available at http://www.who.int/hrh/nursing_midwifery/en/ [Accessed 4 Aug 2020] 2. Barr H. Interprofessional Education-The Genesis of Global Movement. 2015. https://www.caipe.org/resources/publications/barr-h-2015-interprofessional-education-genesis-global-movement. [Accessed 4 Aug 2020]
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,010 | 0,061 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».