Interprofessional and intraprofessional teams in a standardized patient assessment lab
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To report on the relative quality of patient care plans produced by students working in interprofessional or intraprofessional teams, as well as student expectations and experiences working with the different collaborative models. Methods: Students from the health disciplines of pharmacy, nutrition and physical therapy were assigned to work in one of three team types: (a) pharmacy þ nutrition þ physical therapy; (b) pharmacy þ physical therapy; or (c) pharmacy-only. The 90 min assessment lab was conducted in a professional practice lab at the College of Pharmacy and Nutrition, University of Saskatchewan. A case study approach was used with trained patient-actors role-playing a hospitalized patient newly diagnosed with a vertebral compression fracture. Together, each student team interviewed a patient-actor and developed a comprehensive care plan. Results: Students exceeded their expectations with regard to their ability to participate in the patient interview process, develop the care plan, and communicate with the patient and other team members. The nutrition and physical therapy students exceeded their expectations more than the pharmacy students. No significant differences were found between team types as to recommendations made for calcium and vitamin D supplements, the use of a pharmacologic agent, or exercise. On average, interprofessional teams scored higher with recommendations made for pain management, patient education, patient follow-up, global assessment of the care plan, and total score obtained for the plan. Conclusions: Pharmacy students working in teams with other health disciplines produce more complete patient care plans than pharmacy-only teams. Assessment lab activities also appear to increase student support for interprofessional teams and appreciation for contributions made by other health care professions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".