Background and Foreground: Connections & Distinctions when Health Professions Faculty Teach Both Interprofessional Collaborative Practice and Quality Improvement – A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite decades of effort, programs continue to struggle to integrate competencies related quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) into health professions education. Additionally, while QI and ICP may seem intuitively linked and there exists some examples of a coordinated approach, the literature regarding competencies, including knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs), is still largely focused on QI and ICP as separate fields of knowledge and practice. This study explored distinctions and connections between quality improvement (QI) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) competency domains in health professions education. The authors used a qualitative case study approach with an instrumental case, i.e., the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU), where QI and ICP were intentionally integrated as part of core curricula in health professional schools and programs. Eleven faculty members from medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and health care administration participated in interviews exploring their teaching choices in either classroom or clinical settings. Study participants defined the goal of teaching QI and ICP as enabling learners to deliver safe and patient-centered care and described the knowledge and skills required for QI and the attitudes and skills required for ICP. Furthermore, they described the relationship between QI and ICP as one mediated by systems thinking, where ICP is backgrounded as a critical pre-requisite and QI is foregrounded as a vector for developing interprofessional competencies. The MU case elucidates the potential synergies that occur when faculty address quality improvement and interprofessional collaborative practice competencies with an integrated approach that leverages connections, while also respecting distinctions. For health professions education programs looking to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their curricular approach to these fields, it may be fruitful to consider ICP as background and QI as foreground, remembering that without each other, ICP risks losing meaning and QI risks losing impact.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".