Introducing Interprofessional Education and Care Concepts in a Geriatric Multilevel Centre: Development and Introduction of a Toolkit for Staff and Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although interprofessional education (IPE) is not new, there has been limited research in IPE focused on the care of older adults. The objective of this study was to develop and implement an interprofessional education and care (IPE/C) toolkit, to help staff and students understand and apply the concepts of IPE/C.Methods and Findings: Focus groups identified staff and students’ understanding of IPE/C and informed development of an IPE/C toolkit comprised of IPE/C tools and resources. Five clinical teams (N = 51) attended workshops that introduced the toolkit and educated teams about IPE/C. Focus group participants had heard of but had limited exposure to IPE/C. Responses to the Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams (ATHT) questionnaire indicated a positive trend on all questions; 2 questions in subscale 1 were statistically significant (p = .01 & p = .005), indicating a positive attitude toward teams and teamwork. Several limitations were identified, including inconsistent attendance at workshops, scheduling challenges, and limited physician participation.Conclusions: This pilot project provided baseline data on staff and students’ understanding of and attitudes toward IPE/C in a multilevel geriatric centre and demonstrated that an IPE/C toolkit delivered via team workshops can enhance healthcare team attitudes. Next steps include expanding the rollout to other teams and introducing the toolkit to all staff and students.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".