Medical Teacher
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/imte20
Twelve tips for postgraduate interprofessional
case-based learning
Martha Krogh Topperzer, Louise Ingerslev Roug, Liv Andrés-Jensen,
Peter Pontoppidan, Marianne Hoffmann, Hanne Baekgaard Larsen, Kjeld
Schmiegelow & Jette Led Sørensen
To cite this article: Martha Krogh Topperzer, Louise Ingerslev Roug, Liv Andrés-Jensen, Peter
Pontoppidan, Marianne Hoffmann, Hanne Baekgaard Larsen, Kjeld Schmiegelow & Jette Led
Sørensen (2021): Twelve tips for postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning, Medical
Teacher, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2021.1896691
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1896691
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 24 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 115
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=imte20
MEDICAL TEACHER
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1896691
TWELVE TIPS
Twelve tips for postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning
Martha Krogh Topperzera , Louise Ingerslev Rouga, Liv Andres-Jensena, Peter Pontoppidanb, Marianne
and Jette Led Sørensenc
Hoffmannb, Hanne Baekgaard Larsena , Kjeld Schmiegelowa,b,c
a
Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Paediatric Oncology Research Laboratory, Rigshospitalet, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; bDepartment of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark; cDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Juliane Marie Centre, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Based on developing, implementing, and evaluating postgraduate interprofessional case-based
learning, we have written these twelve tips for health education planners who wish to apply casebased learning in the clinical setting. Interprofessional case-based learning engages participants in
a structured manner towards uncovering decisions processes and patterns of action that resemble
the clinical reality in which various healthcare professionals handle multifaceted tasks related to
the optimal patient treatment. Postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning has the potential
to break down traditional hierarchical structures as interactions generate respectful behaviour. We
present two models of case-based learning to assist in standardising, structuring, and systematising
postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning. We have created 12 practical tips for the
design, implementation, and evaluation of successful postgraduate interprofessional case-based
learning integrated into the existing clinical setting.
Introduction
Postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning has the
potential to improve patient outcomes as a participatory
learning method that engages participants in a structured
manner towards uncovering decisions processes and patterns of action. These decision processes resemble the clinical reality in which various healthcare professionals handle
multifaceted tasks related to the optimal patient treatment
and care. Case-based learning is an enquiry-based learning
method linking theory to practice, though there is no standard definition (Egidius 1999; Erskine et al. 2003;
Thistlethwaite et al. 2012). Using authentic clinical cases,
postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning involves
interactive, facilitated group discussions with specific educational goals involving at least two different healthcare professionals working to improve patient care (O’Brien et al.
2017). Originating from the Harvard Business School in the
1920s, the case method formed the basis for participatory
learning based on discussions (Erskine et al. 2003). As discussions are part of the complex clinical decision-making process in healthcare, the case-based learning method is ideal
for healthcare professionals in continuing professional development (Thistlethwaite et al. 2012; O’Brien et al. 2017).
Postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning has
the potential to break down traditional hierarchical structures as interactions generate behaviours that are ‘respectful
of others regardless of their place in the system’ (Hammick
et al. 2009). We adhere to the definition of interprofessional
education as ‘Occasions when two or more professionals
Design; implementation;
evaluation; method; clinical
learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care’ (CAIPE 1997). This assumes that
interprofessional education improves how healthcare professionals work together, which in turn may lead to improved
patient outcomes (Reeves et al. 2017).
The focus of these twelve tips is the planning (Tips 1–5),
execution (Tips 6–10), and evaluation of postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning (Tips 11–12).
Tip 1
Define the need for postgraduate interprofessional
case-based learning
Conduct a needs assessment as the first step in designing
an interprofessional education (Harden 1986; Thomas et al.
2016). What gap needs to be filled? Is it a knowledge, skills
or an attitude gap, or a combination of these? (Bass and
Chen 2016). Education planners need to consider if the
learning objectives are compatible with the educational
strategy of case-based learning (Thomas and Abras 2016).
The purpose of case-based learning is to, for example:
identify and describe interpretations of biological functions, diseases, psychological and social relations and
propose courses of action;
describe the problem (unsatisfactory events and states)
and suggest known or plausible explanations;
differentiate between biological, psychological, social,
ethical, organisational, and political issues;
CONTACT Martha Krogh Topperzer
martha.krogh.topperzer@regionh.dk
Department of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Paediatric Oncology
Research Laboratory, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
ß 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or
built upon in any way.
2
M. K. TOPPERZER ET AL.
have the possibility to expand reflectivity through discussion (elaboration of knowledge);
become motivated to continue own studies in the future.
The purpose of postgraduate interprofessional casebased learning is closely linked to the definition of interprofessional education, as defined by the UK Centre for the
Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE). This
involves presenting learners to the different roles of healthcare professionals involved in patient care. Postgraduate
interprofessional case-based learning involves concepts
other than collaboration and should encompass any of the
above mentioned purposes to be clinically relevant.
Training real medical emergencies or frequently occurring
incidents with the healthcare professionals involved can
improve collaboration and their response (Siassakos et al.
2009, 2011). Focusing on the clinical problem by incorporating communication skills can make the purpose more
compelling to a larger group of healthcare professionals
(Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming).
Case-based learning differs from problem-based learning in
essential ways. Both concern active learning and critical thinking, but problem-based learning focuses on explaining phenomena whereas case-based learning discusses appropriate
actions to solve a problem (Azer et al. 2012). Applying enquirybased learning assists healthcare professionals illuminate a
case from the various viewpoints of the participants, making
the method ideal for postgraduate interprofessional education,
learning with, from, and about each other.
Tip 2
Plan ahead
Secure the physical space and material resources well in
advance. These issues are often underestimated in education research (Erskine et al. 2003; Kitto et al. 2013; Boet
et al. 2014; O’Brien et al. 2017). Organising postgraduate
education can be a strenuous task that includes booking
the right teaching facilities, ensuring that no competing
courses are being held and planning a date that does not
conflict with participants’ existing work schedules. Our
research involved healthcare professionals from 14 various
backgrounds in interprofessional case-based learning on
childhood cancer (Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b,
Forthcoming). Planning involved personally speaking with
scheduling coordinators six months in advance to organise
the dates and time. Staff turnover and participant cancellations on the training day nonetheless represented a challenge. Catering might seem a minor detail but providing
hot beverages, fruit and biscuits can be an effective ice
breaker for healthcare professionals who rarely have time
to take informal breaks.
Prior to the case-based learning session, it should be
considered whether participants should receive content or
materials such as guidelines and standard operating procedures. We developed a website for the case-based learning
where standard operating guidelines relating to the topic
of gastro-intestinal side effects were uploaded and accessible for the participants (Centre 2019). We also emailed the
participants the material two weeks prior to their participation in the case-based learning session (Topperzer et al.
2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming).
Tip 3
Write an interprofessional case
Write a case based on a real-world situation (Herreid 1998;
Erskine et al. 2003; Herried et al. 2016). The case should originate from the participants’ professional background,
involving one or more actual situations or a combination
of situations where a problem needs to be solved and clinical decisions made. The situation needs to be relevant for
all the participating professionals. Situational learning when
the learners independently seek out the information they
need to act on a realistic problem is more efficient (Egidius
1999). Writing and testing cases can be time-consuming
(Herreid 1998; Erskine et al. 2003). Rewriting the case several times is necessary, to strike a balance between being
adequately brief and simultaneously complex (Herried et al.
2016). Anonymise the case to protect patient confidentiality. Write a third-person narrative (Herried et al. 2016) using
active voice, not passive, to clearly indicate who is doing
what (Herreid 1998). Ensure that the case is explicitly relevant to all participants (Herried et al. 2016), for instance if
physiotherapists participate, physiotherapists should be
part of the case (Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b,
Forthcoming). The research group developing the case
should ideally comprise professionals representing the participants to ensure relevance of the case (Topperzer et al.
2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming) (see also Tip 5).
Use of jargon or profession specific language might
make the text difficult to understand for all participating
professions. If physicians or nurses have written the case,
problems central to other professions may likely be omitted, which can be detrimental to the discussion and learning potential of all participants (O’Brien et al. 2017).
In addition to using clear, simple, and neutral language
(Wood et al. 2019), keep the amount of information relatively small (Table 1). The text must aid in understanding
what the problem is and must not act as a puzzle to be
solved. Do not exceed more than a half a page of text per
page as too many details shroud the problem rather than
elucidate it (Herried et al. 2016). Use a single story or break
it into two or three parts to reveal new information stepwise.
Evoke critical thinking in the case (Herried et al. 2016)
and include a scientific problem, narrative of normal reactions to extraordinary conditions, an illness story or similar.
It is imperative to give as many interpretations as possible
of what caused the problem and of potential solutions.
Tip 4
Train facilitators
Initiate the learning and reflection process by facilitating
rather than teaching. The facilitator guides the participants
Table 1. Short extract from page 1 of 9 (Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b,
Forthcoming).
Day one: Monday
Larry, 14, has high-risk acute lymphatic leukaemia (ALL) and is being
treated based on the ALL2Gether protocol. Larry arrives from home,
accompanied by his mother, to receive day 22 of his chemotherapy.
While the nurse is administering the chemo to Larry’s intravenous port, she
asks how he feels. Larry tells her that he has a stomach ache.
For full case, please contact the first author.
MEDICAL TEACHER
in clinical decision-making by posing questions, eliciting
opinions and stimulating a discussion, enabling exploration
of their existing knowledge, skills and attitudes, but also to
uncover gaps (Mauffette-Leenders et al. 2001).
It is paramount that facilitator is trained in posing questions and reframing statements that may seem obvious to
the participants to address assumptions, reflections, and
suppositions (Erskine et al. 2003). Being an expert in one’s
clinical field does not necessarily mean being an expert at
facilitating the reflections of others (Davis 1999).
Participants should leave wondering about and reflecting
on the questions that they are supposed to address, and
also have the motivation to do so.
Thus, facilitating postgraduate interprofessional casebased learning and leading an interprofessional team
involves practice (Hammick et al. 2009). Healthcare professionals vary in terms of the length of their education, work
experience, responsibilities, and learning style, which necessitates taking a variety of approaches to interaction. As a
result, pay meticulous attention to avoiding the unintentional reinforcement of traditional hierarchical structures by
starting, for example with medical questions (O’Brien
et al. 2017).
Tip 5
Test the case
Test the case for three reasons. First, the test should be
used to check if the learning objectives are addressed and
the defined need for interprofessional learning is met.
Second, the case should be tested for flow and duration.
Is it too long or too short for the time allotted? Rushing
through an interesting discussion or limiting a lively one
discussion is highly unsatisfactory for everyone involved.
Third, variability is inevitable (Erskine et al. 2003). As in
all teaching processes, interprofessional case sessions vary
in terms of activity level and intensity. Depending on which
healthcare professionals are present, new questions
emerge, which is why we recommend testing the case
with different participants at least twice to see if the
intended themes emerge consistently. We pilot-tested the
case for a postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning session twice (Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b,
Forthcoming). First, we selected a team of interprofessional
healthcare professionals that resembled the final participants in terms of number of years of experience, age,
professions, and gender. The issues that arose from this
pilot-test were addressed and changes made to the case.
Second, we pilot tested the case on all the facilitators roleplaying a case-based learning session.
Tip 6
Organise the physical space
Ensure that everyone can see the board that displays the
observations, questions and statements generated. To
engage in beneficial debate and to understand one another’s perspectives, productive group dynamics are important
for postgraduate interprofessional case-based learning
(Hammick et al. 2009). To achieve optimal two-way communication, have participants sit comfortably and make
3
eye contact (Erskine et al. 2003). Preferably, sit in a U shape
with the facilitator in the open part to allow eye contact
with everyone. A regular lecture hall is not conducive to
this. A whiteboard at least 4 m wide or multiple sheets of
poster-sized paper should be visible to everyone (Figure 1).
Erskine et al. (2003) describe several possible layouts for
seating alternatives.
Online learning, such as webinars can also be a solution
for conducting interprofessional learning in situations
where healthcare professionals cannot meet in person
(Topor and Budson 2020).
Tip 7
Create a participatory environment
Invite all participants to speak. The atmosphere should be
conducive to learning, which entail inclusive, accepting discussions. Two issues highly affect the environment: group
size and being heard. First, there is no objective evidence
determining the perfect group size (Herried et al. 2016).
O’Brien et al. (2017) recommend a group size of 10–20
(O’Brien et al. 2017) while Erskine et al. (2003) say 20–60 is
the ideal class size. Lessons learned from our postgraduate
interprofessional case-based learning in childhood cancer
revealed that more than 15 interprofessional participants
made managing equal involvement difficult (Topperzer
et al. 2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming).
Second, hierarchies exist even in the most egalitarian
healthcare systems (Hammick et al. 2009; Freeman et al.
2010). While postgraduate interprofessional education has
the potential to break down hierarchical structure, this
needs vigilance and management depending on the context, country, and culture. Uniting healthcare professionals
in an educational setting with the aim of providing highquality patient care will not dissolve existing power
structures, hierarchies, and conflicts (Lingard 2012). Simply
conducting postgraduate interprofessional education does
not lead to structural changes in the healthcare system. A
peril in interprofessional education is that some groups
may feel apprehensive about speaking up in settings other
than a monoprofessional one. One way of mitigating
power structures is to facilitate that all participating healthcare professions are heard. To facilitate equal speaking
time, have participants introduce themselves before beginning the case. The facilitator, however, is responsible for
promoting equity between the groups of healthcare professionals to allow everyone to be represented (Hammick
et al. 2007; Boet et al. 2014). Reducing conflicts in postgraduate interprofessional collaboration requires vigilance
towards use of condescending language or patronising verbal and non-verbal communication. Building egalitarian
power structures requires representation in the facilitator
team by all professions, especially the professionals that
traditionally rank highest. Facilitators representing the highest hierarchy or status can act as role models. Mix where
the various healthcare professionals sit and give them
nametags stating their profession to dismantle power structures and help create an enquiring environment conducive
to interprofessional teamwork (Hammick et al. 2009)
(Figure 2). This type of seating permits pairwise discussions
between healthcare professions who do not communicate
regularly otherwise. As the facilitator meticulously invite
4
M. K. TOPPERZER ET AL.
Figure 1. Writing on the board, adding structure with coloured markers, copywrite Martha Krogh Topperzer. Permission to use photo has been approved by
all participating healthcare professionals.
participants not explicitly mentioned in the case to speak
or call on individuals who have not spoken previously.
Tip 8
Structure the discussion
Facilitate the discussion using a structured approach
(Erskine et al. 2003). Case-based learning research indicates
that case-based learning varies according to feasibility, purpose, and context (Thistlethwaite et al. 2012). A whiteboard
can facilitate reflection, discussion, and synchronise the
group’s work. Table 2 provides an example of a structured
board that draws on Egidius (1999) and Erskine et al.’s
(2003, p. 82) board plans.
The columns derive from heuristic clinical problem solving (defining problems, gathering facts, making a hypothesis, testing it, and providing feedback). The facilitator
guides the thought process through clinical decision-making by posing questions, eliciting opinions, and stimulating
a discussion, allowing participants to independently explore
their knowledge and gaps.
We propose two models for setting up the board. Table
3, model A, where one case is discussed over two sessions,
involves formulating questions as neutrally as possible by
leaving out indicators and not asking leading questions.
Table 4, model B involves handing out the case and
questions in advance to give participants time reflect in,
for example, small groups prior to a larger group discussion (Erskine et al. 2003). These questions should be
directed towards action and not knowledge, e.g. ‘What
problems should the healthcare professional take into consideration at present’ or ‘What course of action is
required now?’.
Tip 9
Facilitate the discussion
Begin by setting the scene and presenting the purpose of
the case-based learning. Provide a printed copy of the case
for each participant with the instructions to not turn the
page until instructed to do so (model A). Ask a participant
to read the first page aloud to help achieve a common
focus. Then asks them to discuss what it is about in pairs.
When the discussion begins to slow down (after
2–3 minutes), initiate a joint discussion based on the headings on the board (Table 2) (Erskine et al. 2003).
Encourage participants to share thoughts, ideas, and
experiences (Hammick et al. 2009). Write all suggestions on
the board – including any that the facilitator does not
agree with. Remember to include all the different healthcare professionals’ perspectives. There are no right or
wrong answers in case-based learning, all contributions are
equally important (Erskine et al. 2003). Different coloured
markers can be used to underline connections that can
MEDICAL TEACHER
5
Figure 2. Mix healthcare professionals using u-shaped table and nametags indicating name and profession, copywrite Martha Krogh Topperzer, permission to
use photo has been approved by all participating healthcare professionals.
Table 2. Example of how to set up headings on a whiteboard.
Important facts: This
we know
Problems: We are not
satisfied with this
Suggestions for
procedures,
treatment, etc.:
Additional
information required:
Possible explanations:
Prognosis if nothing
is done:
Study questions:
Anticipated effect of
measures
and procedures:
Table 3. Model A: one case is discussed over two sessions with self-studies in between.
Model A
Session one
Working with the case
Study questions are drawn up for completion
at second session
Participants seek information, study
independently, and prepare by answering the
study questions
Session two
Case concluded by answering the study
questions and the case is briefly re-examined
(a third session can be planned if required by
the learning objectives)
Table 4. Model B: the case is distributed in advance and prepared individually or in study groups and discussed in one session.
Model B
Prior to the case
Participants receive the case prior to the session
The case can include questions conducive to self-study
Participants familiarise themselves with the case, and study the literature
and other relevant sources of knowledge provided by the facilitator
in advance
help participant understanding and facilitate, structure and
summarise the process (Erskine et al. 2003).
At the end of the session (1–3 hours), ensure that there
are questions to be addressed or study objectives. Let the
participants formulate these themselves with the support
of the facilitator (model A). In model B, the facilitator is
responsible for achieving consensus, but if this is not the
case participants will receive questions to answer for continuing studies. Study questions in an postgraduate
Case-based learning session
One session to conclude case
New study questions can be drawn up
Participants answer the study questions independently
interprofessional setting can cover, for example skill sets,
knowledge of new guidelines or communication chains
(Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming).
Tip 10
Probe, pose, and reflect
Stimulate thinking by posing questions. In case-based
learning the facilitators’ role is Socratic (Mauffette-Leenders
6
M. K. TOPPERZER ET AL.
Table 5. Examples of questions.
Specific questions
Clarifying questions
Open questions
Probing questions
How does that fit with what
you said before?
Can you be more specific?
Would you care to elaborate
your observations/
viewpoints?
Am I to understand that you
mean … .?
How do you see the
problem?
What happened?
Do you mean that … ?
What were the symptoms?
Confrontational questions
When you say it like that,
do you mean … ?
Is that what you do for
illness X?
What do you mean?
et al. 2001; Erskine et al. 2003). To assist in continuous
reflection, make sure that the communication is two-way,
which means encouraging participants to discuss among
themselves by pointing to opposing points of view
(Hammick et al. 2009). As case-based learning originates
from the business domain, participants are expected to
possess some degree of knowledge to be able to discuss
with equals (T€arnvik 2007). By posing questions, the facilitator assists the participants in wondering about and reflecting on the problem, encouraging a process where they
formulate study questions (Erskine et al. 2003) (Table 5).
The facilitator’s body language and facial expressions
can be used to encourage individual participants or the
entire group to continue reflecting or to stop. Hale et al.’s
(2017) twelve tips for effective body language for medical
educators mention using nodding, eye contact, facial
expressions, exclamations, sounds (e.g. ‘hm’), and pauses to
signal interest. During the case-based learning session, use
all of the questioning techniques, not just nodding
and listening.
Tip 11
Evaluate
Capture outcomes relevant to IPE. Evaluating what the participants bring back to their clinical practice is relevant and
Kirkpatrick’s outcome evaluation model can assist in framing potential areas (2006). The purpose of the evaluation
model, has been extended to capture outcomes relevant to
interprofessional education (Barr et al. 2005).
Case-based learning engages participants often resulting
in positive feedback and high satisfaction ratings from participants and facilitators alike (Thistlethwaite et al. 2012).
Postgraduate case-based learning can have a significant
impact on patient outcomes. In a monoprofessional setting,
Kiessling et al. (Kiessling and Henriksson 2002; Kiessling
et al. 2011) used two methods to distribute new guidelines
on the management of lipid levels in patients with coronary heart disease to practitioners divided into two groups.
In one group, the information was disseminated via traditional lectures while the other participated case-based
learning sessions. Patients treated by the latter group had
markedly decreased lipid levels and reduced overall mortality, even 10 years after the case-based learning intervention
(Kiessling et al. 2011). Draycott et al. (2015) also showed
that local and interprofessional elements are essential in a
postgraduate healthcare setting for effective education
adapted to the clinical context.
Evaluating case-based learning is essential to continuously improve the format and its execution, returning to
Tip 1, Define the need. Following the case-based learning
session, the postgraduate interprofessional participants
should evaluate the quality and duration of the session.
Questions, to be rated on a Likert scale, can include: How
was the level of professional content? And, would you recommend others to participate? (Topperzer et al. 2020a,
2020b, Forthcoming). Revisiting the learning outcomes and
exploring whether everyone was active during the session
is essential for planning of future courses. Facilitators
should also reflect on difficult issues and potential conflicts
to improve future sessions (Boet et al. 2014; Topperzer
et al. 2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming), in addition to reviewing
the content on the board to evaluate if all aspects were
covered, and if not, how to directly assess this in
future sessions.
Evaluation tools such as the Assessment of
Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale can be used in
a postgraduate healthcare setting to assess self-reported
team collaboration, including the perspective on patient
involvement, before and after the CBL (Orchard et al. 2012,
2018). Another useful tool is the Readiness for
Interprofessional Learning Survey, which measures selfreported assessment of readiness of interprofessional learning and is widely used in especially pre-graduate training
(McFadyen et al. 2005, 2010; Marcussen et al. 2019). A comprehensive list of 18 quantitative tools referring to Barr
et al.’s extended outcome evaluation model can be
retrieved from the Canadian Interprofessional Health
Collaborative (Kenaszchuk 2013).
Tip 12
Secure leadership buy-in for longevity
Implement educational interventions supported by leadership buy-in (Sunguya et al. 2014). If management or leadership is missing or unclear, committing time and resources
is more difficult and possibly result in a lack of participation by some groups of professionals who do not prioritise
the time in a busy clinical practice (Topperzer et al. 2020a,
2020b, Forthcoming).
Case-based learning is considered easier to implement
than problem-based learning as participants are already
familiar with the topic presented. As one facilitator can
teach more participants than in problem-based learning,
case-based learning is often popular in areas with limited
resources (T€arnvik 2007). As time is often a limited resource
in even the most affluent postgraduate healthcare settings,
case-based learning is feasible and a sound choice for
interprofessional learning.
Leadership buy-in also means having access to designated resources embedded in the organisation to address
human resources issues and logistical challenges (Boet
et al. 2014; O’Brien et al. 2017). Close coordination and
monitoring of participants is essential for the execution of
MEDICAL TEACHER
postgraduate
interprofessional
case-based
learning
(Topperzer et al. 2020a, 2020b, Forthcoming). As a result,
we recommend convening meetings where clinical leaders
explicitly accept and support the intervention. Subsequent
meeting fora that include clinical leaders can be powerful
in securing the participation and involvement of all stakeholders. Stakeholder involvement is highly pertinent to
securing an ongoing postgraduate interprofessional education programme to improve patient outcomes.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Knut Aspegren for kindling our interest and
introducing us to the field of case-based medical education.
Disclosure statement
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are
responsible for the content and writing of the article.
ORCID
Martha Krogh Topperzer
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6628-5067
Hanne Baekgaard Larsen
http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3592-0088
Kjeld Schmiegelow
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0829-4993
Jette Led Sørensen
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7320-2784
Data availability statement
By contacting the corresponding author, materials related to the
development of case-based learning can be shared.
References
Azer SA, Peterson R, Guerrero AP, Edgren G. 2012. Twelve tips for constructing problem-based learning cases. Med Teach. 34(5):361–367.
Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D. 2005. Effective interprofessional education: argument, assumption & evidence. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Bass EB, Chen BY. 2016. Step one: problem identification and general
needs assessment. In: Thomas PA, editor. Curriculum development
for medical education – a six step approach. Baltimore (MD): Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Boet S, Bould MD, Layat Burn C, Reeves S. 2014. Twelve tips for a successful interprofessional team-based high-fidelity simulation education session. Med Teach. 36(10):853–857.
CAIPE. 1997. Interprofessional education: a definition. London: Centre
for Advancement of Interprofessional Education.
Centre JM. 2019. Interprofessional case-based learning. https://www.
rigshospitalet.dk/afdelinger-og-klinikker/julianemarie/enhed-forsimulation/for-fagfolk/simulationsbaseret-forskning-og-traening/
Sider/incase-interprofessional-cancer-education.aspx.
Davis MH. 1999. AMEE medical education guide No. 15: problem-based
learning: a practical guide. Med Teach. 21(2):130–140.
Draycott TJ, Collins KJ, Crofts JF, Siassakos D, Winter C, Weiner CP,
Donald F. 2015. Myths and realities of training in obstetric emergencies. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 29(8):1067–1076.
€r och varfo
€r.
Egidius H. 1999. PBL och casemetodik – Hur man go
Sweden: Studentlitteratur AB.
Erskine J, Leenders M, Mauffette-Leenders L. 2003. Teaching with
cases. 3rd ed. The University of Western Ontario, Canada: Ivey
Publishing.
Freeman S, Wright A, Lindqvist S. 2010. Facilitator training for educators involved in interprofessional learning. J Interprof Care. 24(4):
375–385.
Hale AJ, Freed J, Ricotta D, Farris G, Smith CC. 2017. Twelve tips for
effective body language for medical educators. Med Teach. 39(9):
914–919.
7
Hammick M, Freeth D, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H. 2007. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide
no. 9. Med Teach. 29(8):735–751.
Hammick M, Olckers L, Campion-Smith C. 2009. Learning in interprofessional teams: AMEE Guide no 38. Med Teach. 31(1):1–12.
Harden RM. 1986. Ten questions to ask when planning a course or curriculum. Med Educ. 20(4):356–365.
Herreid CF. 1998. What makes a good case? J Coll Sci Teach. 27(3):163.
Herried CF, Prud’homme-Genereux A, Schiller NA, Herreid KF, Wright
C. 2016. Case study: what makes a good case, revisited: the survey
monkey tells all. J Coll Sci Teach. 46(1):6.
Kenaszchuk C. 2013. An inventory of quantitative tools measuring
interprofessional education and collaborative practice outcomes. J
Interprof Care. 27(1):101.
Kiessling A, Henriksson P. 2002. Efficacy of case method learning in
general practice for secondary prevention in patients with coronary
artery disease: randomised controlled study. BMJ. 325(7369):877–880.
Kiessling A, Lewitt M, Henriksson P. 2011. Case-based training of evidence-based clinical practice in primary care and decreased mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Ann Fam Med. 9(3):
211–218.
Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JL. 2006. Evaluating training programs. San
Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Kitto S, Nordquist J, Peller J, Grant R, Reeves S. 2013. The disconnections between space, place and learning in interprofessional education: an overview of key issues. J Interprof Care. 27(Suppl. 2):5–8.
Lingard L. 2012. Rethinking competence in the context of teamwork.
In: Hodges B, editor. The question of competence. Ithaka and
London: Cornell University Press.
Marcussen M, Nørgaard B, Borgnakke K, Arnfred S. 2019.
Interprofessional clinical training in mental health improves
students’ readiness for interprofessional collaboration: a nonrandomized intervention study. BMC Med Educ. 19(1):27.
Mauffette-Leenders L, Erskine JA, Leenders MR. 2001. Learning with
cases. London, Ontario: Richard Ivey School of Business; Senton
Printing.
McFadyen AK, Webster V, Strachan K, Figgins E, Brown H, McKechnie J.
2005. The readiness for interprofessional learning scale: a possible
more stable sub-scale model for the original version of RIPLS. J
Interprof Care. 19(6):595–603.
McFadyen AK, Webster VS, MacLaren WM, O’Neill MA. 2010.
Interprofessional attitudes and perceptions: results from a longitudinal controlled trial of pre-registration health and social care students in Scotland. J Interprof Care. 24(5):549–564.
O’Brien BC, Patel SR, Pearson M, Eastburn AP, Earnest GE, Strewler A,
Gager K, Manuel JK, Dulay M, Bachhuber MR, et al. 2017. Twelve
tips for delivering successful interprofessional case conferences.
Med Teach. 39(12):1214–1220.
Orchard CA, King GA, Khalili H, Bezzina MB. 2012. Assessment of
Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS): development and
testing of the instrument. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 32(1):58–67.
Orchard CA, Pederson LL, Read E, Mahler C, Laschinger H. 2018.
Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS):
further testing and instrument revision. J Contin Educ Health Prof.
38(1):11–18.
Reeves S, Pelone F, Harrison R, Goldman J, Zwarenstein M. 2017.
Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and
healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (6):CD000072.
Siassakos D, Bristowe K, Draycott TJ, Angouri J, Hambly H, Winter C,
Crofts JF, Hunt LP, Fox R. 2011. Clinical efficiency in a simulated
emergency and relationship to team behaviours: a multisite crosssectional study. BJOG. 118(5):596–607.
Siassakos D, Crofts JF, Winter C, Weiner CP, Draycott TJ. 2009. The
active components of effective training in obstetric emergencies.
BJOG. 116(8):1028–1032.
Sunguya BF, Hinthong W, Jimba M, Yasuoka J. 2014. Interprofessional
education for whom? Challenges and lessons learned from its
implementation in developed countries and their application to
developing countries: a systematic review. PLOS One. 9(5):e96724.
T€arnvik A. 2007. Revival of the case method: a way to retain studentcentred learning in a post-PBL era. Med Teach. 29(1):e32–e36.
Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S, Kidd JM, MacDougall C,
Matthews P, Purkis J, Clay D. 2012. The effectiveness of case-based
learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic
review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach. 34(6):e421–e444.
8
M. K. TOPPERZER ET AL.
Thomas PA, Abras CN. 2016. Step 4 educational strategies. In: Thomas
PA, editor. Curriculum development for medical education – a six
step approach. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press.
Thomas PA, Kern DE, Hughes MT, Chen BY, editors. 2016. Curriculum
development for medical education: a six-step approach. Baltimore
(MD): Springer Publishing Company.
Topor DR, Budson AE. 2020. Twelve tips to present an effective webinar. Med Teach. 42(11):1216–1220.
Topperzer MK, Hoffmann M, Larsen HB, Rosthøj S, Nersting J, Roug LI,
Pontoppidan P, Andr
es-Jensen L, Lausen B, Schmiegelow K, et al.
2020a. Interprofessional versus monoprofessional case-based learning in childhood cancer and the effect on healthcare professionals’
knowledge and attitudes: study protocol for a randomised trial.
BMC Health Serv Res. 20(1):1124.
Topperzer MK, Hoffmann M, Larsen HB, Rosthøj S, Nersting J, Roug LI,
Pontoppidan P, Andres-Jensen L, Lausen B, Schmiegelow K, et al.
Forthcoming. Effect of case-based learning on healthcare professionals’ knowledge of and attitudes towards interprofessional team
collaboration in childhood cancer: a feasibility study.
Topperzer MK, Thellesen L, Hoffmann M, Larsen HB, Weibel M, Lausen
B, Schmiegelow K, Sørensen JL. 2020b. Establishment of consensus
on content and learning objectives for an interprofessional education in childhood cancer: a Delphi survey. BMJ Paediatr Open. 4(1):
e000634.
Wood JDM, Leenders MR, Mauffette-Leenders LA, Erskine JA. 2019.
Writing Cases: The Proven Guide. J. David, M. Wood and Associates
Incorporated, Leenders and Associates Incorporated, and Erskine
Associates Incorporated.