Assessing Effective
Interprofessional Teamwork
Professor Keith Stevenson,
School of Health and Life Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
Scotland
UK
Acknowledgement to Staff
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2011-12
Chris Seenan
Wendy Smith
Gordon Morlan
Seb Chastin
Catriona Khamisha
Stephen Plunkett
Anna Iveson
Ben Stansfield
Gordon Burrow
Louise Boyle
2012-13
Chris Seenan
Seb Chastin
Gill Constable
Debbie Taylor
Pei Ling Choo
Ben Stansfield
Morag Campbell
John Carruthers
Trevor Grant
Maureen McKane
Nicky Andrew
Ima Jackson
Pauline Hamiltion
Tom McAlear
Liz Hastie
Lesley Price
Ron Johansen
John Smith(EdTech)
Definition
Interprofessional Education takes place on
those “occasions where two or more
professions learn with, from and about each
other to improve collaboration and the quality
of care”
(Centre for the Advancement of
Interprofessional Education [CAIPE], (2002).
Statutory Requirement
RCN (2007) on IPE
“ Effective collaboration in professional practice is necessary to
underpin a patient-centred flexible health and social care
service with staff working across social boundaries, in flatter
non-hierarchical structures”.
Standards for Pre Reg. Nursing Education (NMC 2010)
R5.7 Programme providers must ensure that students have the
opportunity to learn with, and from, other health and social
care professionals. (NMC 2010 p75)
So...
• How are health professionals supposed to
work together if they don’t learn together?
• The GCU School of Health IPE framework was
devised to address that issue
IPE Framework U/G 2010/11
Level 1 Foundations of Health and Soc Care Practice
Level 1 Psych and Soc for Health and Social Care
-------------------------------------------------------------Level 2 Research Methods (On Line)
---------------------------------------------------------------Level 3 Investigating Effective Practice (On Line)
-------------------------------------------------------------Level 4 Organisations Policy and Prof Practice
Level 4 Honours Project
--------------------------------------------------------------
20 Credits
20 Credits
20 Credits
20 Credits
20 Credits
40 Credits
IPE L1 delivered to 10 Professional Disciplines
(800 students per year cohort)
Nurse (BN)
Orthotics
+Prosthetics
and SP+L
Therapy
Nurse (BAHNS)
Dental
nurses
Radiotherapy
and Diag Imag
Orthoptics
IPE
Framework
Operting Dept
Practice
Physiotherapy
Ambulance
and
Paramedic
Occupational
Therapy
Podiatry
Social
Work
IPE Competencies
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
problem-solving,
decision-making,
respect,
communication,
shared knowledge and skills,
patient/client -centred practice,
working collaboratively as a team.
Measuring IPE Competence
Learning outcome :
Knows the principles of carrying out research in
Health and Social Care
Assessment: MCQ
Learning Outcome:
Working Effectively in online Groups
How do we reward working effectively in an online
group?
WebPA
• WebPA is an award winning online peer
assessment tool developed over 15 years by
University of Hull and Loughborough
University
• More information can be found at:
http://www.webpa.ac.uk
Group Assessment with
Peer Assessment (PA):
• Normally, students all
receive the same grade,
regardless of input
• With PA, group grade is
proportionally shared
between group
members
The PA Grids
Each group member rates each other group member
on 4 criteria:
1. Contribution to discussion
2. Constructive input
3. Input to organising the group
4. Overall contribution to task
0-1-2-3-4
0-1-2-3-4
0-1-2-3-4
0-1-2-3-4
WebPA then combines the rankings and produces a
weighted factor for each student which reflects their
degree of input to the task
Qu. 1
Group Member No.
Qu. 2
Qu. 3
Qu.4
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4
3
1
3
0
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
1
3
1
3
3
4
4
3
4
3
1
3
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
1
3
4
4
4
3
4
1
5
4
1.25
1
0.33
0.19
0.00
0.29
0.10
0.91
1.13
2
2
5
4
1.25
2
0.08
0.19
0.00
0.14
0.20
0.61
0.77
1
1
5
4
1.25
3
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.36
0.45
4
2
5
4
1.25
4
0.33
0.25
0.00
0.29
0.20
1.07
1.34
3
4
5
4
1.25
5
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.21
0.40
1.05
1.31
3
1
5
4
1.25
1
0.31
0.19
0.00
0.23
0.10
0.83
1.03
1
2
5
4
1.25
2
0.08
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.20
0.54
0.68
1
1
5
4
1.25
3
0.08
0.19
0.00
0.08
0.10
0.44
0.55
4
2
5
4
1.25
4
0.23
0.25
0.00
0.31
0.20
0.99
1.24
4
4
5
4
1.25
5
0.31
0.19
0.00
0.31
0.40
1.20
1.50
4
1
5
4
1.25
1
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.27
0.10
0.80
1.01
1
2
5
4
1.25
2
0.06
0.19
0.00
0.07
0.20
0.52
0.65
2
1
5
4
1.25
3
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.10
0.61
0.76
4
2
5
4
1.25
4
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.27
0.20
0.97
1.21
4
4
5
4
1.25
5
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.27
0.40
1.10
1.38
3
1
5
4
1.25
1
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.23
0.10
0.77
0.96
2
2
5
4
1.25
2
0.19
0.19
0.00
0.15
0.20
0.73
0.91
2
1
5
4
1.25
3
0.06
0.19
0.00
0.15
0.10
0.50
0.63
4
2
5
4
1.25
4
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.31
0.20
1.01
1.26
2
4
5
4
1.25
5
0.25
0.19
0.00
0.15
0.40
0.99
1.24
1
2
3
4
5
1.03
60
0.75
60
0.60
60
1.26
60
1.36
60
Group Member No.
1
2
3
4
5
PA Adjusted Grade
62
45
36
76
82
6
5
4
8
8
1
2
3
4
5
Number in Group
MF Calc
Factor
Normalised
1
2
3
4
5
Total
PA Total
Group Member No.
PA Factor
Group Grade
10%
10% Deduction?
Final (%)
1
62
45
32
76
82
Evaluation:
• Module Feedback Questionnaire:
– 98 completed (approx. 30% response)
– Two questions related to PA
The online peer assessment process made sure those that did not
contribute to group presentations were penalised
13%
12%
15%
16%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
44%
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
The peer assessment process benefited those that worked effectively
and communicated effectively in preparing answers to the group tasks
9%
11%
28%
42%
10%
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
What did students say?
• “I found the peer assessment very beneficial as it
was necessary when there were people in the
group that weren't very active about getting work
done”
• “felt that the peer assessment was good in that it
penalised the group members who did not
contribute”
• “the peer assessment was obviously put in place
to give credit to those who deserve it and take it
away from those who don't deserve it”
What do staff say?
• In 35 years of teaching in HE I have never seen
such a shift in student behaviour as brought
about by Web PA
• Much more engagement than last year
• Marking and providing feedback in 3 days was
stressful
• Marking and getting group task feedback back
to students was time-consuming
Research Methods 20012-13
• 776 students registered to the course
• 19 staff online tutor support
• 1 tutor per 40 students (approx)
• 40 students divided (8 x 5 Interprof Task Groups)
• 5 x Bi-Weekly Interprofessional Tasks
• 5 opportunities to be group Lead
• Timetabled opportunity to meet in task groups
Weds 9-12
Importance of Feedback
• Tasks organised by groups and submitted
5.00pm Sunday
• Peer Assessment open Sunday- Tuesday
5.00pm
• Task marked and returned by Thursday
5.00pm
• Engagement with process (98% of students
submitted Peer Assessments Task 1)
Value of Process
• Students are encouraged to engage
• Students who do not engage are identified at
week 2
• Students are contacted and encouraged to
engage in task 2
• Students who do not engage are identified at
week 4.
Opportunity to Improve
• 13 students penalised <30% Task 1
• 7 students penalised <30% Task 2
• 7 students penalised <30% Task 3
• 4 students penalised <30% Task 4
From a total of 776 students nearly 99% have been
encouraged to engage and to achieve.
This has been addressed through continuous electronic
feedback and monitoring and discussion.
And finally for the cat lovers...
Teams can sometimes
help traditional enemies
work together for a
common goal .
Contact Details
Professor Keith Stevenson
Head of Interprofessional Education
School of Health and Life Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
E mail: keith.stevenson@gcu.ac.uk
Tel: 0141 331 8833
Mob: 0758 358 2799