An interprofessional practice capability framework focusing on safe, high-quality, client-centred health service.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes an interprofessional capability framework which builds on the existing interprofessional competency and capability frameworks from the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States of America. Existing published frameworks generally make reference to being client-centred and to the safety and quality of care, and locate interprofessional collaborative practice as the central theme or objective. In contrast, this framework interlinks all three elements: client-centred services, safety and quality of services, and interprofessional collaborative practice. The framework is clear and succinct with an accompanying visual representation that highlights all key features. The framework has informed curriculum which incorporates a common first-year, case-based educational workshops and practice placements within a large complex health sciences faculty of approximately 10,000 students from 22 disciplines. The articulation of these key elements of health practice has facilitated students, academic staff, and community health professionals to develop a shared understanding of interprofessional education and practice. The design, implementation, and evaluation of learning outcomes, learning experiences, and assessments have been transformed with the introduction of this framework, which is highly applicable to other contexts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".