The Design and Impact of an Interprofessional Education Event Among Pharmacy and Nursing Students in Palliative Care—RnRx
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly all reports of interprofessional education (IPE) in palliative care have excluded pharmacy students. This article describes an IPE event between pharmacy and nursing students and assesses its impact on IPE competencies. Second-year nursing students and third-year pharmacy students participated in an evening-long event, focused on a married couple who each require palliative care-one for end-of-life planning and one for chronic disease progression. The impact of the event was assessed using the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Scale (ICCAS) and qualitative feedback. Two hundred nine (96.7%) completed the ICCAS, and 16 of the 20 statements of the ICCAS showed large positive effect sizes (Cohen d ≥ 0.8), with the remaining 4 showing moderate positive effect sizes (Cohen d ≥ 0.5). The greatest effect sizes were related to improved awareness of complementary skillsets and knowledge between the professions. Addressing team conflict and including the patient/family in decision-making showed the least improvement. While ongoing interactions are ideal for the development of skills related to conflict and team development, this article demonstrates that even a 1-time activity can have an impact on students' interprofessional care competence.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".