The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE)
Project
Projet d’Éducation à Distance en Oncologie Psychosociale Interprofessionelle
(ÉDOPI)
An innovative Model for Interprofessional Education in the Health Professions
October 2008
Deborah McLeod
Serge Dumont
Maureen White
Janet Curran
IPODE Project Final Report
2
Project Partners
Principal Investigators
Advisory Panel Members
Expert Panel Members
Project Staff
Maureen White, Project co-ordinator and Research Associate
Karyne Gelinas, Research Administrative Co-ordinator
Kiley Rider, Graphic Artist
Consultants
Janet Curran, Project Evaluation
Grant Charles, Interprofessional Education
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
3
Main Messages (1 page) ................................................................................................................ 5
Executive Summary (3 pages) ...................................................................................................... 6
Context ......................................................................................................................................... 10
Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Phase I: Laying the Foundations for Collaboration and Curriculum Consensus ................ 12
Theme I - Relational Practice ........................................................................................ 122
Theme II - Essential Topics for Learners ........................................................................ 13
Theme III - Knowledge for Interprofessional Practice .................................................. 14
Theme IV - Course processes to create and sustain a community of learning ............. 14
Phase II: Course Development .................................................................................................. 15
Pedagogical Foundations & Threads ................................................................................... 15
Web-Based Learning ............................................................................................................. 17
Learning Resources ....................................................................................................... 17
Faculty Development ...................................................................................................... 18
Phase III: Course pilot and evaluation (January to June, 2008) ............................................ 18
Leadership/Partners ................................................................................................................... 19
Communication and Dissemination .......................................................................................... 21
Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 31
References and Appendices........................................................................................................ 34
Appendix X ....................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
4
List of Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Committee Members
Focus Group Demographics
Course Resources
Student Demographics
IPODE Evaluation Framework and
Summary of Findings
Appendix F Performance Measurement Matrix
Appendix G National Meetings
Appendix H Presentations
Appendix I Sample Survey
Appendix J Survey Findings University Course
Appendix K Survey Findings CE Course
Appendix L Select Survey Findings Contrasted Academic:
Continuing Education
Appendix M External Evaluation
Appendix N Lessons Learned by Domain
Draft
October 29, 2008
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 41
Page 42
Page 50
Page 57
Page 66
Page 69
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 76
Page 90
IPODE Project Final Report
5
IPODE Project: Main Messages
Canadians affected by cancer identify general dissatisfaction with how health professionals help
them to manage the burden of cancer, including their psychological, emotional, social and functional
needs. This creates a need to improve the knowledge and skill of health professionals in this area.
Developing interprofessional, inter-university and inter-provincial collaborations to provide webbased psychosocial oncology education provides a myriad of benefits. These include unique
opportunities for interprofessional learning and practice for students and faculty, whether located in
urban or rural/remote settings.
The IPODE Project provides a model for interprofessional education in specialty areas that are not
easily sustainable by individual universities.
There is a high level of interest from students and health professionals in online interprofessional
learning in psychosocial oncology. Such learning opportunities can meet or exceed participant
expectations for quality education, interactive learning and flexible scheduling.
Faculty learning and development in interprofessional, web-based education requires considerable
time and commitment. Interprofessional team teaching is highly valued by faculty.
Social network analysis (SNA) has been identified as an effective methodology for evaluating the
development of collaborative interprofessional networks.
Engaging academic administrators and key faculty champions in planning course delivery is
necessary in order to sustain course enrolments across universities.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
6
Executive Summary
Cancer is a serious and growing health concern that imposes tremendous burdens on
Canadians who are diagnosed with cancer as well as their loved ones. Large Canadian satisfaction
surveys consistently show that people affected by cancer are much less satisfied with the level of
care that they receive with regard to helping them to manage the cancer burden than they are with
the medical aspects of cancer treatment. There are a range of barriers to the provision of adequate
psychosocial care, one of which is the knowledge and skill of health professionals.
Psychosocial oncology is an area of health care that is concerned with assessment and
treatment of cancer burden, including the myriad of emotional, psychological, social, spiritual and
functional aspects of living with cancer. Psychosocial oncology is an interprofessional aspect of
cancer care for all health professionals and a subspecialty focus for some. Although national
standards of practice in the field (CAPO 1999) identify the need for health professionals to have
formal education in this field, prior to the IPODE project there were very few universities that
offered courses in this area. The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education
(IPODE) project was conceived by the Education Committee of the Canadian Association of
Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO) to address this need.
The IPODE project was funded through the IECPCP initiative of Health Canada from 20062008. The specific objectives of the projects were:
1. To develop an interprofessional, web-based course in psychosocial oncology that will be available
in English and French as an elective to graduate level students in partner universities and to
practicing health professionals as a continuing education (CE) option.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
7
2. To foster the development of a Canadian network of psychosocial oncology educators who will
work to sustain this and other similar courses, and who are prepared both to teach and to conduct
research from an interprofessional, collaborative, patient/family centered perspective.
In the first phase of the project, a national consensus for psychosocial oncology curriculum
was established using focus group methodology. Four themes were identified: relational practice,
essential topics for learners, knowledge for interprofessional practice and course processes to create
and sustain a community of learning. These themes formed the framework for the course syllabus,
which was then submitted for approval to 8 universities: Dalhousie, Atlantic School of Theology,
University of New Brunswick, Université Laval, University of Toronto, Wilfrid Laurier, University
of Calgary, University of British Columbia (Okanagan). Three additional partner universities added
students through transfer of credit: Memorial University of Newfoundland, Queen’s, and University
of British Columbia (Vancouver).
The course design was based on theories of interpretive pedagogy, social constructionism
and communities of learning. Key course threads included illness narratives, diversity and cultural
safety and interprofessional collaboration. Blackboard Learning Systems (BLS) provided a platform
for the course, through the Integrated Learning Online department at Dalhousie University. The
course included 6 units of work, spread over 13 weeks. Many creative learning resources were
gathered (with copyright permission) or were created specifically for the course, including
documentaries, interviews and dramatizations. These were supplemented with text based learning
modules, written cases and online lectures. Students were assigned to small groups of
interprofessional learners who met online in real time “voice direct” seminars for 1.5 hours once
every 2 weeks.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
8
The university elective version of the course was launched in January 2008, with 25 students
across disciplines completing the course, while the CE option ran from March to June 2008, with 27
health professionals completing the course. The student evaluations demonstrated high levels of
satisfaction with the course, with evidence that the course contributed not only to psychosocial
oncology knowledge and skill but also to interprofessional collaboration knowledge and skill.
Interest in oncology and psychosocial oncology as an area of practice increased between the pre and
post surveys, suggesting that the course may serve as a useful recruitment tool. There were a number
of improvements also suggested including increased technical support and reducing course workload
(CE version). Students in nine provinces and one territory participated in the course pilots. Faculty
evaluations of the teaching experience were also excellent and the IPODE model serves as a
significant faculty capacity building medium.
Sustainability of the IPODE project is an ongoing area of focus. The Introductory IPODE
course is the first of what may be several course options for university students and health
professionals in this area of practice. A second course has been funded for development through the
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer and will be piloted in 2009. It appears that universities will be
willing to contribute faculty support to teach in the course in proportion to the numbers of their
university students that participate in the course. Clinical cancer agencies have also been generous in
agreeing to contribute faculty time from among clinical experts in those settings. CAPO has agreed
to take on the oversight for course offerings and updating. Fees from the CE option will support an
administrative co-coordinator as well as faculty development and an annual or bi-annual national
meeting.
Key recommendations from the project include the following:
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
1.
9
The IPODE project provides an effective model for interprofessional education. It should
be considered as one viable approach for specialty areas of health care where numbers of
interested students in any one university or community may be too small to sustain
interprofessional course work. It is also should be considered as a model for health
professional continuing education needs, particularly for rural and isolated communities.
2.
Web-based, interprofessional education is an area of education practice that requires
considerable knowledge and skill on the part of faculty. Sufficient resources and
opportunities for mentoring and team building should be in place to address faculty
development needs.
3.
Based on student feedback, first person narratives of those affected by cancer were
powerful learning resources. Along with opportunities for guided reflection created an
excellent beginning point in developing an interprofessional community of learning.
Illness narratives should be considered as learning resources when planning
patient/family centered educational opportunities.
4.
Social network analysis should be considered as one approach for evaluating complex
networks.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
10
Context
Cancer continues to be a growing health concern in Canada with an estimated 166,400 new
cases and 73,800 deaths in Canada projected for 2008. However, with improved treatments and
earlier diagnoses, a greater number of people are living with cancer for extended periods of time and
the prevalence stands at almost 900,000 (CCS, 2008). Cancer is a tremendous burden to the person
who is diagnosed and to their intimate others. Psychosocial distress (that is, clinically significant
depression, anxiety and adjustment disorders) is prevalent across all cancer types and occurs
throughout the illness trajectory (Zabora, BrintzenhofeSzoc, Curbow, Hooker, Piantadosi, 2001;
Sellick & Crooks, 1999; Carlson & Bultz, 2003. However, this distress is under-addressed by health
care systems (IOM, 2008; Carlson & Bultz). For example, fewer than 10% of those cancer patients
who are distressed are identified and referred to appropriate psychosocial care (Carlson & Bultz),
despite effective available treatments. Canadians affected by cancer identify that they are far less
satisfied with how their psychosocial and supportive care needs are addressed than with other
aspects of cancer care (NRC Picker, 2008). There are a range of barriers to the provision of adequate
psychosocial care, one of which is the knowledge and skill of health professionals.
The IPODE project was initiated by the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology
(CAPO) in collaboration with university and cancer agency partners in seven provinces and across
five key health disciplines: medicine; nursing; social work; spiritual care and psychology. CAPO is a
national inter-professional association whose mandate is to foster professional and public education
in psychosocial oncology, an area of cancer care concerned with the social, psychological,
emotional, spiritual, quality of life and functional aspects of living with cancer. While psychosocial
oncology is an aspect of practice for all health professionals, some health professionals become
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
11
specialists in the field, generally through graduate level education (CAPO/ACOP Standards of
Practice, 1999).
Historically there have been very few opportunities for formal education in psychosocial
oncology. Prior to the IPODE project, courses were offered in only one or two Canadian universities.
Factors that were identified as contributing to this gap include a lack of faculty prepared to teach
psychosocial oncology courses and too few students at any one university to sustain course work in
this area.
The IPODE project was designed to expand opportunities for interprofessional education in
psychosocial oncology. A main goal of the project was to create an innovative course emphasizing
patient/family centered care using web-based learning technologies. The initial course provides a
model for subsequent courses. The long term objective is to create a certificate program in
psychosocial oncology. The specific objectives for this project were:
1. To develop an interprofessional, web-based course in psychosocial oncology that will be available
in English and French as an elective to graduate level students in partner universities and to
practicing health professionals as a continuing education (CE) option.
2. To foster the development of a Canadian network of psychosocial oncology educators who will
work to sustain this and other similar courses, and who are prepared both teach and conduct research
from an interprofessional, collaborative, patient/family centered perspective.
Approach
The IPODE project was designed in three phases, described below:
Phase I:
Laying the Foundations for Collaboration and Curriculum Consensus
(Fall/Winter 2006-2007);
Phase II: Course Development (2007);
Phase III: Course pilot and evaluation (January to June, 2008).
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
12
Phase I: Laying the Foundations for Collaboration and Curriculum Consensus
The IPODE project was designed to include an advisory committee, regional expert panels
and ad hoc working committees (see Appendix A). These groups provided oversight and contributed
to the project evaluation and the course design and met regularly over the course of the project.
An initial step was to build a national consensus of a psychosocial oncology curriculum using
focus group methodology. A total of 16 focus groups with 120 individuals were conducted across the
country (see also Appendix B). Participants included psychosocial oncology practitioners, oncology
health professionals (such as nurses, physicians, social workers, psychologists, spiritual care
providers dieticians and radiation therapists), graduate students and patients and their family
members across five regions of Canada (Atlantic Canada, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British
Columbia). Ethical approval was sought and obtained from hospital and/or university Research
Ethics Boards in each participating region.
ATLAS.ti, a qualitative data management software program, was chosen to assist with the
analysis of focus group data. This software allows codes to be linked directly to digital audio files,
eliminating the need for complete transcription of the focus groups. Using a thematic analysis
approach, the project team identified 4 main themes, outlined below.
Theme I - Relational Practice
Focus group participants told us that health professionals must learn to practice within a relational
context, taking into consideration that the person with cancer and their family members are situated,
whole people. Health professionals are also situated, shaped by their own context and history and
need to be self-reflective in practice. Finally, cancer care itself is situated within a health care system
that imposes certain challenges, barriers, and possibilities. Within these contexts, a therapeutic
relationship is the foundation of psychosocial care.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
13
(Quotes to insert – sidebar or . . . ?)
“[You need to] strengthen knowledge . . . of where people are having difficulty
in terms of social inequity, social issues . . . access . . . and oppression . . . and [are]
being held back from getting the health care they are entitled to. [You need to]
take it beyond the patient”. – Health Care Professional
“Educate to treat the whole person, treat as a person with the disease, not the disease attached to the
person”. – Patient
“Remember . . . nobody chooses to have cancer…no one is choosing to have that relationship with
you, you chose to be in this profession . . . you are involved with someone at a very crucial time in
their life and they are very vulnerable . . . it is up to you to make that relationship . . . very small
interactions can change everything for someone at a very vulnerable time”. – Family member
Theme II - Essential Topics for Learners
A wide variety of topics were identified as important in psychosocial oncology education. These
were clustered within 7 categories:
 Emotional responses (hope, loss, grief, fear, trauma)
 Mental health issues (anxiety, depression, suicide)
 Managing the cancer trajectory (stages and transitions, symptom
 Management, medical aspects of cancer)
 Spirituality / Existential issues (meaning and purpose, death and dying)
 Family (systems, roles, development)
 Navigating complex systems
 Ethics
(Quotes to insert)
“Existential issues . . . have some background in existentialist therapy or philosophy . . . a lot of the
anxiety is not clinical anxiety the way that somebody in a mental health setting would experience”. –
Health Care Professional
“Often when people receive a cancer diagnosis, their life as they know it is shifting or changing. For
some people that might mean death, for some it triggers loss histories. . . [You need] sensitivity that
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
14
cancer isn’t like other conditions . . . it can meet the definition of trauma”. - Health Care
Professional
“[It is] important to know stages of development, for individuals as well as families, so people can
understand people within a context of their whole environment and life”. - Health Care Professional
Theme III - Knowledge for Interprofessional Practice
Participants suggested that understanding the fullness of each disciplines’ scope of practice,
particularly the areas of overlap where tensions tend to occur, is essential for interprofessional
collaboration. Teams need to know each other as human beings, above and beyond their “role”.
(Quotes to insert)
“[It is] important to articulate each profession’s role . . . where they come from . . . what their
education is like . . . the differences and similarities so we have respect for each discipline”. –
Student
“We know the roles of each other . . . it takes time to gel together . . .if your team is disjointed then
the work that you do together for the patient and for the family is disjointed” – Health Care
Professional
“[You need] awareness . . . you are not going to know it all . . . you need to have
some avenue for case consultation . . . you need to be comfortable with your own
skills . . . you need to be able to talk to others”. – Health Care Professional
Theme IV - Course processes to create and sustain a community of learning
Participants emphasized that a course in psychosocial oncology must be case-based and allow for
interaction among learners and teachers. Fostering student interaction is critical to the success of a
web-based course.
(Quotes to insert)
“Use process of case-based but small group work on the case . . . then you get different
perspectives”. – Student
“Mentoring . . . like actual examples on a video . . . you learn by example”. – Health Care
Professional
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
15
Phase II: Course Development
Two versions of the course were developed in Phase II. They were a graduate level, for
credit, university based course, and a continuing education option. Course approvals are in place in
most of the partner universities, with others continuing to work toward gaining approval. In the
meantime, these latter universities offer the course to their students through transferred credit.
Course development focused on designing innovative strategies to promote interprofessional
education and practice using the web-based technologies.
Pedagogical Foundations & Threads
The IPODE course was informed by interpretive pedagogies (Ironside, 2001) and
conceptualizations of communities of learning (Wenger et al, 2002). Drawing on these foundations,
participants (students and faculty members) in a given community understand teaching and learning
as a continuous process where the roles of “teacher” and “learner” are exchanged depending on the
context, topic or conversation. Knowledge is understood as socially constructed, situated and
interpretable from multiple theoretical and experiential perspectives. The voices of those affected by
cancer were included in the course using a variety of dramatic productions, interviews and
narratives. As community members actively engage in the exchange of knowledge and practice
wisdom pertaining to psychosocial oncology, these artifacts become embedded in the collective
knowledge of the community through the process of discussion and consensus. While faculty
members play a key role in modeling and influencing the development of values and beliefs within
the community, they also assume the role of learner.
There are three content themes threaded throughout the course: illness narratives; diversity;
and interprofessional collaboration.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
16
Illness Narrative - Patient/family centered care as a key commitment is actualized in the course in a
variety of ways. Illness narratives in the first person voice were gathered as learning resources.
These were used in every course unit to increase student understanding of the experience of cancer
from the point of view patients and their families. Some resources were created for the course while
others were gathered from existing resources and permission obtained for course streaming.
Discussion board postings and bi-weekly seminar group meetings were used to provide students with
the support they needed to integrate the illness narratives.
Diversity - Diversity is an integral concept in the course. We understand that various aspects of
diversity (e.g., ethnicity, class, culture, age, and gender) can influence how people experience cancer
and respond to the health care system. Interprofessional teams are also made up of individuals who
are influenced by diverse personal and professional cultures, experiences and values. While one
course unit specifically attends to diversity through mini-lectures, readings and dramatizations, the
theme of diversity was threaded throughout the course, using case studies and seminar discussions.
Collaboration - Collaboration is “an interprofessional process of communication and decision
making that enables the separate and shared knowledge and skills of health care providers to
synergistically influence the client/patient care provided” (Way, Jones & Baskerville, 2001). To
develop collaborative skills, health professionals need to spend time together in meaningful ways.
The IPODE course provides opportunities for participants to work together in a shared learning
space, one that is both text and voice based. Specific activities require interprofessional teams of
learners to analyze problems, develop goals and describe potential interventions. The team assumes
shared accountability for outcomes.
To work together in a meaningful way, interprofessional team members must be familiar
with the expertise and culture of others. In the IPODE course, students explore the values, beliefs,
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
17
customs and behaviors of their professional colleagues as they attend to patient and family care
issues. Through this process, the students collaborate in developing a shared vision for psychosocial
oncology.
Web-Based Learning
In the last decade, web-based learning has grown dramatically in its scope and effectiveness..
However, despite the potential for highly interactive learning online, faculty and students continue to
express concerns about web-based learning. They value the need for social presence and for time to
learn about the technology and about each other (Stodel, Thompson, MacDonald, 2006). These
concerns were carefully considered as we moved forward in the course design.
The IPODE project established a collaborative relationship with Dalhousie University office
of Integrated Learning Online (ILO), whose mandate is to provide leading edge, cost-effective
student access to quality online learning (Bates, 1999). Supported by ILO, the project team built the
IPODE course within the Blackboard Learning System (BLS), a platform familiar to many students
and faculty across Canada. Interactive spaces were used for such things as student and faculty photos
and biographies, asynchronous bulletin board discussions and bi-weekly synchronous course
teleconferences. These were attended by small groups of 6-8 students and an assigned faculty
member. During these online meetings, groups of students worked as teams to consider real issues in
psychosocial oncology care. Both psychosocial oncology and interprofessional collaboration
objectives are addressed in each course unit.
Learning Resources
As the focus group data was analyzed, course content themes emerged. Drafts of the course proposal
titled Psychosocial Oncology: Introduction to Theory and Practice were circulated to the project
expert panels for review prior to submission to the partner universities for course approval. Contracts
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
18
were established with psychosocial oncology and interprofessional experts (practice, research and
education) from across Canada to create learning modules for key content areas. Each module
provides the foundation for self-directed learning and interprofessional collaboration. Modules are
clinically oriented and evidence based. They include a content outline with key learning themes,
questions for reflection, key readings, enrichment readings, relevant websites, a learning activity for
small groups of interprofessional learners and case studies highlighting the learning themes. Module
topics draw on the initial focus groups and the literature (Chen, 2007, Cook, 2007, Die-Trill &
Holland, 1999, Schofield, Carey, Bonevski, & Sanson-Fisherr, 2006). Appendix C outlines the range
of resources developed and the contributors.
Faculty Development
The faculty for the course mirrored the student groups, with one faculty member from each target
health care discipline (medicine, nursing, psychology, social work and spiritual care) forming a
teaching team. All faculty members had clinical expertise in psychosocial oncology and/or palliative
care. Some were experienced university teachers. Others who were less experienced were mentored
by the faculty team and the faculty development consultants. This team held regular virtual meetings
several times prior to the course, and regularly during the course to define and address their learning
needs, particularly in the areas of web-based learning and interprofessional education.
Phase III: Course pilot and evaluation
The two versions of the course were piloted in 2008. Each was offered with both Anglophone and
Francophone seminar groups. The university elective ran during the winter semester (January to
April, 2008) with 25 students completing the course. The continuing education option ran from
March to June, 2008 with 27 students completing the course. For demographics of the student
groups, see Appendix D. It is important to note that there were very short timelines for advertising
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
19
the courses. We hoped to pilot with one group of 10-15 students for each course and in fact were
overwhelmed with interest.
The IPODE Evaluation Framework (see Appendix E) was designed to address the two
project objectives. Evaluative data was captured from project partners, faculty and students. The
project partner data included an online survey administered before the first national meeting and
again at the end of the project. A social network methodology was used to analyze these data. Social
network analysis provides a means for mapping and analyzing relationships among people, teams,
and/organizations. Graphical representation, called a sociogram, makes visible patterns of interaction
and information sharing within and across important networks.
Student data was gathered from a variety of sources including course performance and a prepost course survey. To assess interprofessional learning, the project received permission to include
an adaptation of Stone’s (2006) self-assessment questionnaires for the pre- post survey. This tool
captures participants’ perceptions of their own interprofessional strengths and challenges.
Descriptive statistics (frequencies, means, and modes) were used to analyze the survey data. As
more data is collected across future courses, we will be able to apply more sophisticated statistical
analyses to the pre-post data. Finally, focus group methodology was used to gather information from
faculty regarding their experience with interprofessional education, team teaching and the distance
delivery elements of the course.
9
Leadership/Partners
One of our main objectives was to create a network of professionals committed to psychosocial
oncology education and education research. There were a number of strategies that we used
including:
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
1.
20
Regular meetings of the expert panels allowed for a tremendous amount of discussion
about psychosocial oncology education content and process, web-based education and the meaning
and strategies of interprofessional education. Involvement with these panels led to high levels of
satisfaction on the part of the participants, who became our primary champions in the partner
universities and agencies.
2.
Two national meetings were held. Participants included university and clinical agency
senior administrators, policy makers from provincial education and health departments and national
leaders in interprofessional education, in addition to the project partners (see also Appendix G). The
first meeting, held in November, 2007 in Toronto, was a visioning exercise that focused on
sustainability. The second meeting, held in conjunction with CAPO in Halifax, May 2008, used a
round table format for the working phase of the meeting to focus on three topics: sustainability,
faculty development and brainstorming for a second IPODE course. These meetings were
tremendously important not only in generating ideas, particularly around sustainability, but also in
building awareness and commitment to the goals of the IPODE project.
3.
We made particular attempts to include people who were affected by cancer. Their
involvement informed particular learning resources, which proved to be a powerful and highly
valued aspect of the course. For example, a mother and adult daughter contributed a one hour
interview about their experiences managing a “terminal” diagnosis of metastatic cancer that had
been offered some 6 years prior. The challenges of living with this ongoing threat, the impact on
each of them from the perspective of the “patient” and a family member, and the ways health
professionals are or are not helpful was invaluable. The fact that the daughter was also a Master of
Social Work student added another dimension. IPODE course participants were able to read a
published paper by the daughter/student that further developed some of the themes in the interview
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
21
and added an academic dimension. There were numerous other ways that voices of those affected by
cancer contributed to the course, including cases studies, dramatic productions written by those
affected by cancer or acted by them.
We also had good input from these populations via two focus groups, one in Halifax and the
other in British Columbia. However, while some of those affected by cancer sat on expert panels and
attended the national meetings, involving those who are affected by cancer is an area that deserves
more attention. Of note, there were participants in the project who were in dual roles, including a
number of health professionals and students who contributed from the outset or through the pilots
were also directly affected by cancer at the time of their involvement.
4.
Student involvement has been significant through both focus groups and formal and
informal offerings through the course pilots. We were less successful than we hoped in engaging
students on the expert panels, which perhaps is a reflection of time constraints generally.
Social network analysis allowed a tracking of the relationships among participants over time
and the satisfaction of these participants with their involvement was also evaluated.
Communication and Dissemination
It is perhaps obvious that maintaining meaningful communication across a large number of partners
and agencies is difficult. We initially started with participants from seven universities and a similar
number of clinical agencies in seven provinces with a total of 35 individuals. At the time of writing,
the number of universities offering the course or seeking to offer it has risen to 16 and regular
participants in the project number approximately 50.
The project staff developed a communication plan that included regular teleconferences,
meeting in person, annual meetings, newsletters and our website. Formal linkages to the Canadian
Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO) Education Committee and Board of Directors were
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
22
maintained throughout the project. We also presented the project at every opportunity and in
multiple venues. Presentation venues included local and provincial settings, as well as national and
international meetings (for a list of presentations see Appendix H).
The CAPO network was also a primary communication vehicle and supported dissemination
of course advertising and other information at key intervals. As the pilot courses were completed,
student and health professional participants became champions for the course and the project.
Dissemination efforts are continuing at the time of writing. Academic dissemination will
involve publication in a variety of journals, including those addressing the oncology and
psychosocial oncology communities and higher education. One area that has not been fully
developed is to establish more formal links with a number of professional associations beyond
CAPO, including, for example, the Canadian Association of Nurses in Oncology, the Canadian
Association of Social Workers and the Canadian Psychological Association.
Working toward Sustainability
Sustainability is a major challenge and is dependent on involving large numbers of partners
across disciplines and sectors who are committed to education in this area. Grant funds have allowed
the development of one course only and that course has provided a clear model for more courses.
Based on the success of the IPODE project to date, we were recently awarded a second grant by the
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer to develop a second psychosocial oncology course. Our
ultimate goal is to develop a collection of courses that will result in a certificate for university
students and some national recognition for CE course completion.
A key problem identified early on was that, while individual universities could encourage
students to enrol in the course, there was a need for a national body to co-ordinate the IPODE project
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
23
as a whole. The obvious choice for this role was CAPO. The details of exactly how this will happen
are yet to be finalized, but the planning is well underway.
Many universities have informally agreed to contribute faculty time in proportion to the
numbers of students from their university taking the course. This likely means each university will
contribute one faculty member for one course approximately once every 2 years. In return, the
universities will keep their own tuition monies. For the continuing education version, participants
will pay tuition to the project, but at a significantly lower rate than the cost of a university course. In
return, a number of cancer agencies have agreed to allow their staff to teach the course occasionally,
as part of their workload as an in kind contribution. The number of agencies participating in the
project means this burden to the agencies will probably be manageable.
There are significant costs associated with maintaining the introductory course, as well as
subsequent courses that will be developed. Administrative support, as well as technical and faculty
development support will be needed, about 1.0 FTE in total. As well, an annual meeting of faculty
and others is necessary to plan for course offerings, update course modules, and continue the
conduct of education research. Finally, faculty stipends may be required, though if the annual
meeting is held in conjunction with the CAPO national annual conference, travel funds to attend
both the conference and the IPODE meeting may be seen as acceptable remuneration.
At the moment the commitment to, and interest in, the IPODE project is high and growing.
We continue to consider options for ongoing funding. Whether or not sufficient funds can be raised
through CE student tuition remains to be seen.
Key Findings
Developing interprofessional, inter-university and inter-provincial collaborations to provide
web-based psychosocial oncology education provides a myriad of benefits, including unique
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
24
opportunities for interprofessional learning and practice for students and faculty, and possibilities for
sustainable specialty education. The IPODE project has served as an important catalyst to build
knowledge and skill in interprofessional education (IPE) strategies in psychosocial oncology
education in three areas: graduate studies; health professionals post-licensure; and IPE using webbased technologies.
There are three levels of evaluation pertinent to the project: Students and practising health
professionals who participated in the course; IPODE course faculty (which included both university
teachers and expert clinicians in the field); and the project partners. The evaluation framework
addresses the project objectives (2); the course objectives in relation to psychosocial oncology (6)
and interprofessional education (6) and is based on Kirkpatrick’s (1998) model which addresses 4
levels of evaluation: reaction, learning, impact and transfer. Both qualitative and quantitative data
were gathered using focus groups and pre-post surveys. For the detailed framework see Appendix E.
An overview of key findings is provided below.
Course Participants – Students and Practising Health Professionals
There were two primary sources of evaluation data gathered from the course participants,
which included 25 students who completed the university elective and 27 health professionals who
completed the continuing education elective. First, participants completed a pre and post survey
designed to examine attitudes, knowledge and perceived skill in 3 areas: interprofessional
collaboration, psychosocial oncology and web-based learning. The survey also asked about their
experience of the course, including the leaning resources, the seminars, the features of the BLS
platform, such as the discussion boards and voice direct, which was used for real-time seminars.
Finally, they responded to items regarding their experience of the faculty. The survey was adapted
with permission from Stone’s (2006) survey designed to evaluate interprofessional beliefs and
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
25
attitudes. Items that were unique to our project were added to the survey (see Appendix I). In
addition to the survey results we also examined course grades in the university option as one element
of evaluation. Participants in the CE course received a Pass/Fail rather than a numerical grade. In
addition to the quantitative data, we also gathered qualitative data, including discussion board data,
narrative comments in response to items added to the survey and archived verbal comments about
the course from the final course meeting.
In keeping with the guidelines of our ethics approval, completion of the course surveys was
optional. Students were strongly encouraged to complete the surveys. Across the two versions of the
course, complete data for 34 participants (65 %) were obtained, with partial data for another three.
The detailed findings from these surveys are contained in Appendix J & K.
Of the students who completed the academic course, overall they were highly satisfied with
the course (94% agreement) and commented on the quality of the materials and the learning gained
in both areas of focus, psychosocial oncology and interprofessional education. While the course
website overall was user friendly and the real-time seminars were useful to learning (94%
agreement), only 67% found the discussion boards contributed to their learning.
There were striking differences in how participants experienced the CE course versus the
university course, with far fewer CE course participants expressing satisfaction with the course
materials and web-tools. For example, in response to the item “the layout of the course content on
the website was intuitive” and the item “the email tool was easy to use”, only 53% were in
agreement in contrast to the academic group who reported 88% and 76% agreement respectively.
However, 79% of the CE group found the website easy to navigate (vs. 88% in the academic group).
The learning resources were also evaluated less favourably in some areas and more favourably than
others in contrast to the academic group. Both groups rated the reading assignments and the course
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
26
video materials as most beneficial to their learning. See Appendix L for additional detail comparing
the university and continuing education groups.
The continuing education faculty were also rated lower in every category except being
knowledgeable regarding course content. This was a disappointing finding but probably reflected the
difference in demographics between the CE participants and the university students where the
generally younger university group appeared to have much more experience with web-based courses
and to require less faculty support. Narrative feedback suggested that some participants expectations
needs for timely feedback were not always met, providing a focus for discussion during future
faculty development sessions.
The data on the interprofessional collaboration items were very similar between the
university credit and the CE options and were analyzed together. For example, 82% agreed with the
item “I can identify ways to improve the effectiveness of my IP collaboration” after the course in
contrast to 68% prior to the course.
One of the goals of the IPODE project was to recruit students into oncology and psychosocial
oncology practice after graduation. In relation to that, in the student group, 83% of students indicated
on the post-survey that they would like to work in psychosocial oncology practice when they
graduate in comparison to 67% in the pre-survey. Although many of the CE participants were
already working in oncology settings, their interest in psychosocial oncology also increased after the
course. See Table 1.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
27
Table 1
Change in Values/Beliefs (Merged Academic and CE data)
Item
% agreement
pre course
(n=34)
I believe I am highly effective at IP collaboration
65
I need to improve my IP effectiveness
79
I can identify ways to improve the effectiveness
68
of my IP collaboration
I would like to work in PSO practice when I
56
graduate
I am confident interacting with practitioners from
85
other disciplines
I feel misunderstood by practitioners from other
18
health disciplines
% agreement
post course
(n=34)
74
71
82
74
94
.08
In addition to the quantitative items on the survey, students were also asked for their
comments on a number of items. Two key areas related to what they found to be the most satisfying
aspect of the course and the impact of the course are synthesized in Table 2 below. They also offered
a number of suggestions for improvement of the course.
Table 2
Themes
Most satisfying things gained
from the course:
Illustrative Student Quotes
“The excellent and up to date material in this course. All material brought
an interesting perspective to the table. Much of it was evocative and
brought the issues to life.”
Exposure to new resources
“Increased knowledge in identifying depression, in sexuality concerns and
in area of hope.”
“more knowledge, better, a knowledge I can apply immediately in my
work”
Most satisfying things gained
from the course:
Interprofessional knowledge
and skills
“Exposure to literature from a range of professions.”
De-mystification of the role of other health professionals. I feel more
comfortable with the prospect of working as part of interdisciplinary
teams
Knowledge regarding the skills and expertise of fellow health disciplines,
and greater confidence with initiating and supporting interprofessional
practice.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
Most satisfying things gained
from the course:
Enhanced knowledge and
skills regarding psychosocial
oncology
28
This course reinforced the importance and value of interprofessional
learning, especially in this field. The contributions and insights of other
professionals were very helpful in my learning.
A greater understanding of psychosocial issues for patients and families.
I have learned that the relationships that I establish with patients can be a
very important part of their care and these relationships need to be
attended to fully for patient and health care team to have satisfying
outcomes.
I am much more aware of the psychosocial impact of cancer on patients
and their families and will make discussion of these issues more consistent
in my practice.
How will this course impact
your practice?
I have been working as a nurse in oncology for seven years and feel I have
been enlightened or awakened.
I have become aware of a number of gaps in how we practice and hope to
take a proposal re some education and practice changes to our directors.
The course has already impacted upon my practice - in my use of the
knowledge presented in the articles as I encounter similar situations in my
work.
More relaxed in talking about disease progression.
I will be more focused on identifying depression earlier on in my patients;
more interested in identifying sexuality concerns
There were 3 general areas of improvement suggested. First, course participants suggested
that meeting weekly rather than bi-weekly would be helpful, a change that has since been made.
Second, they felt the discussion boards were not as well utilized as they might be. This may reflect
the relative lack of experience among the faculty in using web-based technologies and this has
become a significant focus for faculty development. Finally, some students felt that they needed
more technical support than was offered, reflecting the wide variety of experience with web-based
technologies among the participants. These needs were especially high among the CE course
participants. For course participants who are highly anxious, significant amount of time needs to be
invested early on in order for the technology not to be a barrier to their learning (Tyler-Smith, 2006).
Strategies for identifying those students are being explored and a student guide to preparing for webDraft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
29
based learning has been created. A fourth area related only to the CE participants in which they
suggested there was too much reading material to be accommodated within their work life.
A primary challenge with data collection in this population was the limits of ethical
permission imposed by our host university, which prevented requiring students to complete the
surveys. However, we received some evaluation feedback from all students who completed the
course and 34 complete data sets out of 52 possible data sets (65%).
In terms of student academic success, the mean university course grade was 86% or A- .
Among the many challenges of grading students, one of the issues was that that marking schemes
were not the same across universities in that an “A” at Dalhousie is not necessarily the same as an
“A” at University of British Columbia. Furthermore, expectations and traditions vary across
faculties. While these issues have not been completely resolved, the development of clear and
detailed marking rubrics has helped. CE participants received a pass/fail and all who stayed in the
course passed.
Overall the drop out rate for the course in both groups was quite high. In the university
option, 35 students registered and 25 (71%) completed. By far the most common reason given for
withdrawal was competing work/school demands that made course completion difficult (5/10
offered this explanation, including the 3 / 4 physicians who registered for the course). Other
explanations included: family demands, illness and no explanation.
In the CE course of the 46 who registered, 27 (60%) completed the course. The majority who
withdrew did so in the first 1-2 weeks. The two reasons giving were difficulty balancing course
demands with employment and family demands. Many of those who withdrew stated that had not
realized how involved the course would be and struggle with the technology was one aspect that
seemed to increase the sense of how “involved” the course was. Although not the most commonly
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
30
cited reason, struggles with the technology may still have been a significant factor for some early
withdrawers (Tyler-Smith, 2006). We have attempted clarify and quantify the time needed to
successfully complete the course in our advertising materials in order to allow for better planning.
As well, we have made some minor adjustments in the reading load and the assignments for the CE
group as well as created a students guide to web-based learning, as noted above.
One element that may have influenced student withdrawal across groups is that there was no
cost to take the course or any penalty for withdrawal in the pilot offerings. This may be a factor in
the degree of commitment to the course, as well as the extent to which potential participants
carefully review the description of the course prior to enrolling. A CE version of the course was
launched on September 29th with 21 students and to date (October 30th) there has been just one
withdrawal. Students in this course have paid a registration fee of $550.
Faculty
Evaluation data was also collected from faculty, both pre and post their teaching experience. The
same faculty taught during the university option and for the first CE option. The data was primarily
qualitative using focus group methodology. Overall faculty found the team teaching experience to be
highly satisfying and felt that they gained knowledge and skill in both web-based technologies and
in interprofessional education strategies. Developmental needs of faculty were similar in some
regards to the course participants, particularly around the use of the technology. Support needs were
high, particularly in the beginning. Learning needs in this area were addressed by consultants in
web-based pedagogy and in interprofessional learning. The same technical supports were needed for
faculty as for students. Faculty identified that they became very comfortable with the technology by
the end of the course and that bi-weekly faculty meetings were extremely helpful in problem solving
interprofessional issues as they arose in their groups and ensuring consistency across the learning
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
31
groups. Student evaluation of the faculty was generally good, across the dimensions of support,
interest, knowledge of the field and accessibility to students.
One benefit of the project has been increased capacity with regard to faculty. Most of the
faculty to date have taught neither web-based nor interprofessional courses. Faculty development
opportunities within the project are a great benefit not only to psychosocial oncology but to higher
education more generally.
Partners
A key objective of the IPODE project was to foster an interprofessional network of
psychosocial oncology educators and education researchers committed to IPE in psychosocial
oncology. Social network analysis (SNA) was used as one method of monitoring the evolution of the
network. SNA analysis includes the possibility of both descriptive interpretation and statistical
analysis of the data. Data was collected from project partners at two time points: at the first national
meeting in November 2006 (T1), and at the second national meeting in May 2008 (T2). In addition
to collecting data that would allow construction of the sociograms used in SNA, we also asked the
project partners a series of questions including their interest in participating in future psychosocial
oncology initiatives in this area, their attitudes about the potential of the course to have a positive
impact on care, and the degree to which they were satisfied with the opportunities to contribute to
the course content, design and the final course.
Findings suggest that 86% of partners felt that they had sufficient opportunity to contribute to
the content of the course, while 92% of partners agreed that the course would have a positive impact
on psychosocial oncology practice and the health outcomes of patients. The shift in the relationship
patterns between T1 and T2 suggest that there were fewer “outliers’ and increasing density of
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
32
relationships, suggesting more interaction among partners. Not only was there increased interaction
but the interaction increases occurred across regions.
Conclusion and Recommendations
Although this project developed one course, it provides a template for the development of
future graduate level interprofessional and multi-site/sectoral courses, both within and beyond a
psychosocial oncology focus. It also provides a template for other professions who might wish to
develop educational initiatives specific to their discipline, extending the impact of this one project
far beyond psychosocial oncology and its member disciplines. We anticipate a number of benefits
and outcomes as a result of the IPODE project in the following areas:
•
Families affected by cancer will benefit from skilled providers offering compassionate,
evidence-based, person-centered care.
•
Graduate Students and practising health care professionals in community and hospital settings
will benefit from high quality, accessible interprofessional education.
•
Health Care Systems will benefit from the increased capacity to provide person- centered care
and from increased skill in interprofessional collaboration.
•
Universities will gain high quality, accessible electives for their health professional students
through inter-university collaborations
•
Health care professionals who choose cancer care as an area of practice (recruitment) as well as
support for those in the field (retention).
•
Faculty skilled in interprofessional and web-based pedagogies for psychosocial oncology
education.
 Knowledge generation and translation in psychosocial oncology practice and education.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
33
 Innovative models for health professional education in other speciality areas.
Key recommendations from the project include the following:
 The IPODE project provides an effective model for interprofessional education. It should be
considered as one viable approach for specialty areas of health care where numbers of interested
students in any one university or community may be too small to sustain interprofessional course
work. It is also should be considered as a model for health professional continuing education
needs, particularly for rural and isolated communities.
 Web-based, interprofessional education is an area of education practice that requires considerable
knowledge and skill on the part of faculty. Sufficient resources and opportunities for mentoring
and team building should be in place to address faculty development needs.
 Based on student feedback, first person narratives of those affected by cancer were powerful
learning resources. Along with opportunities for guided reflection created an excellent beginning
point in developing an interprofessional community of learning. Illness narratives should be
considered as learning resources when planning patient/family centered educational opportunities.
 Social network analysis should be considered as one approach for evaluating complex networks.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
34
References
Alliger, G., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W., Traver, H., Shotland, A. (1997) A meta-analysis of the
relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology, 50, 341-358.
American Psychiatric Association, (Ed.). (1994). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders. 4th ed. Washington, DC: APA.
Bates, A.W. (1999). Managing Technological Change: Strategies for College and University
Leaders. San Francisco: JB Publishers.
CAIPE (1997). Interprofessional education-A definition. London: Centre for the Advancement of
Interprofessional Education.
Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (1999). National Psychosocial Oncology Standards
for Canada.
Carlson, L. E., Bultz, B. D. (2003). Cancer distress screening. Needs, models, and methods. J
Psychosom Res., 55: 403-409.
Chen, I. (2007). The factors influencing members’ continuance intentions in professional virtual
communities: a longitudinal study. Journal of Information Science, 33, 451-467.
Cook, D. A. (2007) Models of interprofessional learning in Canada. Journal of Interprofessional
Care, Supp 1, 107-115.
Die-Trill, M. & Holland, J. (1995). A model curriculum for training in psycho-oncology. Psychoncology, 4, 169-182.
Institute of Medicine (IOM). Cancer Care for the Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health
Needs. Washington, DC: The National Academics Press; 2008.
Ironside, P. (2001). Creating a research base for nursing education: An interpretive review of
conventional, critical, feminist, postmodern, and phenomenologic pedagogies. Advances in Nursing
Science, 23(3), 72-87.
Schofield, P. , Carey, M. Bonevski, B . & Sanson-Fisherr, R. ( 2006). Barriers to the provision of
evidence-based psychosocial care in oncology. Psycho-oncology, 15, 863-872.
Sellick, S. M. , Crooks, D. L. (1999). Depression and cancer: An appraisal of the literature for
prevalence, detection, and practice guideline development for psychological interventions. Psychooncology, 8:315-333.
Stodel, E., Thompson, T., & MacDonald, C. (2006). Learners’ perspectives on what is missing from
online learning: Interpretations through the community of inquiry framework. International Review
of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 7(3), 1-24.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
35
Stone, N. (2007) Evaluating interprofessional education: The tautological need for interdisciplinary
approaches. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(3), 260-275.
Tyler-Smith, K. (2006) Early Attrition among First Time eLearners: A Review of Factors that
Contribute to Drop-out, Withdrawal and Non-completion Rates of Adult Learners undertaking
eLearning Programmes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,2, 2, 73-85. Retrieved
online at: http://jolt.merlot.org/documents/Vol2_No2_TylerSmith_000.pdf
Way, D., Jones. L. & Baskerville, N. B. (2001). Improving the effectiveness of primary health care
through nurse practitioner/ family physician structured collaborative practice. University of Ottawa.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press
Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Curbow B, Hooker C, Piantadosi S. (2001). The prevalence of
psychological distress by cancer site. Psychooncology. 10:19-28
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
36
Appendices
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
Committee Members
Focus Group Demographics
Course Resources
Student Demographics
IPODE Evaluation Framework and
Summary of Findings
Appendix F Performance Measurement Matrix
Appendix G National Meetings
Appendix H Presentations
Appendix I Sample Survey
Appendix J Survey Findings University Course
Appendix K Survey Findings CE Course
Appendix L Select Survey Findings Contrasted Academic:
Continuing Education
Appendix M External Evaluation
Appendix N Lessons Learned by Domain
Draft
October 29, 2008
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39
Page 41
Page 42
Page 50
Page 57
Page 66
Page 69
Page 72
Page 73
Page 74
Page 76
Page 90
IPODE Project Final Report
37
Appendix A
Committee Members
Advisory Committee
Dr. Deborah McLeod, Dr. Serge Dumont Members: Dr. Barry Bultz,
Dr. Susan Cadell, Dr. Grant Charles, Ms. Esther Green, Dr. Gary Rodin
Expert Panel Members
Atlantic
Nova Scotia: Dr. Jody Clarke, Ms. Janet Curran, Dr. Janice Howes, Ms. Emmie
Luther-Hiltz, Ms. Linda McAlpine, Dr. Deborah McLeod, Dr. Ruth Martin-Misener,
Ms. Brenda Richard, Dr. Douglas Sinclair;
Newfoundland: Ms. Pamela Faulkner-Baker,
Dr. Sandra Leforte; Dr. Shirley Solberg
New Brunswick: Ms. Karen Tamlyn
Quebec
Dr. Michèle Aubin, Dr. Serge Dumont, Dr. Lise Fillion, Dr. Pierre Gagnon,
Dr. Josée Savard, Dr. Carmen Loiselle
Ontario
Dr. Susan Cadell, Dr. Mary Elliot, Ms. Esther Green, Dr. Doris Howell,
Dr. Gary Rodin, Dr. Corinne Schroder
Western
Manitoba: Ms. Jill Taylor-Brown
Alberta: Dr. Lynda Balneaves, Ms. Stephanie Hubbard, Ms. Lisa Lamont, Dr. Helen MacRae,
Dr. Guy Pelletier, Dr. Jeanette Waegemakers Schiff, Dr. Bejoy Thomas
British Columbia: Dr. Grant Charles, Ms. Gina MacKenzie, Dr. Carole Robinson,
Course Design & Evaluation Committee
Dr. Susan Cadell, Dr. Grant Charles, Ms. Janet Curran, Dr. Doris Howell,
Dr. Deborah McLeod, Dr. Guy Pelletier, Ms. Maureen White,
Dr. Jeanette Waegemakers Schiff.
Faculty Members (January – June 2008)
Dr. Susan Cadell (Social Work)
Ms. Kathy Edmison (Spiritual Care)
Dr. Mary Elliott (Medicine)
Dr. Karen Fergus (Psychology)
Dr. Deborah McLeod (Nursing)
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
38
Appendix B
Focus Group Demographics
To Be Inserted
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
39
Appendix C
Course Resources
Type of
Resource
Learning
Module
Content Topic
General cancer care :
Cancer 101
Complementary and
Alternative Medicine
Psychotropic drugs
Professions of Primary
authors
Nursing, Medicine &
Pharmacy
Nursing
Site of resource
development
Available on line: APOS
(2007)
UBC
Medicine
Dalhousie and Capital
District Health Authority
(CDHA)
CDHA
UBC
Fatigue in Cancer
Interprofessional
Education, collaboration
and practice
Psychosocial oncology
assessment
Cancer illness trajectory
Nursing
Social Work
Depression, Suicide and
Desire for hastened death
Anxiety, Fear and
Managing uncertainty
Couples and Cancer
Medicine
Cancer and Sexuality
Nursing
Existential issues,
intentional living and
meaning making
Loss
Spiritual care
Families with children
experiencing an adult
cancer
Hope
Nursing
Nursing, Social Work
Social Work
Psychology
Psychology
Social Work
Bioethics
Draft
October 29, 2008
Dalhousie University,
CDHA
UBC BC Cancer
Agency(BCCA)
Dalhousie University,
CDHA
Dalhousie University,
CDHA
Sunnybrook Odette
Cancer Centre
Dalhousie University,
CDHA
Atlantic School of
Theology
Wilfred Laurier
University,
Dalhousie University,
CDHA
Dalhousie University,
CDHA
Dalhousie University
IPODE Project Final Report
40
Type of
Resource
Content Topic
Professions of
Primary authors
DVD
Patient
perspective
DVDs from
research with
people with
cancer
A drama entitled Ball : a young man’s
perspective on his diagnosis and treatment
of testicular cancer
Handle with Care
(Women with metastatic cancer)
No Big Deal (men with prostate cancer
and their partners)
Ladies in Waiting
(Survivorship)
Fish Out of Water
(Partners of women with cancer )
Video tape of mother/daughter who
discuss their experiences with the
mother’s metastatic breast cancer
experience
Patient/family
(Brian Lobel holds
copyright)
Psychology ( Dr
Ross Gray holds
copyright)
Social Work
Wilfred
Laurier
University
A series of IP team scenarios to cover
situations encountered in psychosocial
oncology care (4 vignettes)
A young woman’s experience with BMT.
Hand written diary and 3 filmed vignettes
Social Work
UBC
Film/theatre,
Nursing, Social
Work and team of
graduate students
Spiritual Care
UBC, BCCA
DVD:
Patient/family
narrative
* in-depth re:
lived family
experiences
along illness
trajectory
DVD
Interprofessional
collaboration
DVD and printbased
patient/family
narrative
Print-based Case
Print-based Case
Family with teen children where a parent
has cancer
Young family where mother has a reoccurrence of breast cancer
Draft
October 29, 2008
Social Work &
team of graduate
students
Site of
resource
development
Chicago,
USA
Sunnybrook
Atlantic
School of
Theology
Wilfred
Laurier
University
IPODE Project Final Report
41
Appendix D
Student Demographics
Student Demographics
Academic
CE
20-29
30-39
40-49
50-59
60-69
11
8
5
1
0
3
8
11
14
1
Nursing
Medicine
Psychology
Social Work
Spiritual Care
Other
7
4
2
9
3
0
13
3
3
14
1
3
10
14
13
24
(Students completing pre course survey)
Age:
Discipline:
Previous web-based course
experience:
Yes
No
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
42
Appendix E
IPODE Evaluation Framework
IPODE Evaluation Framework
Level
Focus
Reaction
Affective
Target
Objectives
Project
Objectives 1
&2
Participants
Students
Indicators
Data Summary
1. Satisfaction with course design, 1. 94% of academic students indicated their
course content
overall satisfaction with the course and indicated
they would recommend the course to other
graduate students.
2. Quality and volume of interaction
2. All students participated in the online
discussion board and small group work. The
volume of discussion board postings varied
between groups. 94% of academic students (68%
CE participants) indicated that the small group
work contributed to their learning. 71% academic
& 68% CE participants indicated that the content
3. Change in sense of community on the discussion board contributed to their
support network
learning.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
Project
Objective 2
Utility judgment
Project Obj. 1
and 2
43
Faculty
Satisfaction with course
design, course content
Project Partners,
Project
Management,
Steering and
Regional/Provincial
Committees
Satisfaction with course
development process,
community/network
development process
Students, Faculty
and Mentors,
Project Partners,
Project
Management,
Steering and
Regional/Provincial
Committees
Students
High level of consensus on the
usefulness of the course for job
performance
Draft
October 29, 2008
Course was content rich but heavy. It took some
time to become familiar with the placement of
materials on the site. “Not all things felt in place”
Faculty were provided with a workshop and
training session prior to commencement of the
course. 4 of 5 faculty printed of a hard copy of
course materials to refer back to during the voice
direct sessions with students. The faculty
consultants were an excellent and important
resource. A manual containing FAQ and
guidance for discussion boards would be helpful.
88% of academic and 79% of CE participants
found that the website was easy to navigate.
86% of partners felt they had sufficient
opportunity to contribute to the content of the
courses.
100% of course graduates felt that improving
interprofessional practice would improve patient
outcomes.
IPODE Project Final Report
44
Faculty
Learning
Knowledge
Course PSO
Obj. 1-6 and
IPC Obj. 1 – 5
Project Partners,
Project
Management,
Steering and
Regional/Provincial
Committees
Students
High level of consensus on the
usefulness of the course for job
performance
High level of consensus on the
usefulness of the course for job
performance
1. Successful completion of the Academic course grades IPODE winter 2008
course
( Mean 86% or A- )
2. Low attrition
Project Obj. 1
3. Knowledge growth
(including self-report)
Project Obj. 1
Faculty
92% of partners agreed that the course would
have a positive impact on psychosocial oncology
practice and the health outcomes of patients.
1.Knowledge growth (including
self-report)
Draft
October 29, 2008
Attrition was relatively high (30-40%). The most
common reason given was failure to anticipate
the workload involved. Other factors likely relate
to unfamiliarity with technology and the fact that
students were not required to pay fees to take the
pilot course. Subsequent CE course offering has
had very low attrition to date (.04%)
At the end of the course 82% of students
(academic + CE) felt they could identify ways to
improve their interprofessional collaboration vs.
68% pre course.
2 of 5 faculty had no experience teaching using
web based technology at the outset but by the
end of the course they felt comfortable with the
technology. Support from project staff and
consultants was important. Biweekly meetings
were key to building a strong teaching team.
IPODE Project Final Report
Behavior/Skill
Course PSO
obj 1-6 and
IPC Obj. 1 – 5
Project Obj. 2
Project Obj. 2
Project Obj. 2
Retention
Transfer
Application in
practice
45
Students
Changes in Interprofessional
collaboration (including selfreport)
At the end of the course 94% of all
students/particpants indicated they felt confident
interacting with other disciplines (versus 85% pre
course)
Project Partners,
Project
Management,
Steering and
Regional/Provincial
Committees
Changes in Interprofessional
collaboration and networks
Social Network Analysis Survey for
Stakeholders: comparison of T 1 (National
Meeting) T2 (May 2008, 2nd National Meeting)
measures highlighted changes in density
(indicating some increased interaction) and
greater interaction across regions.
Faculty
Changes in Interprofessional
collaboration and networks
Not for this
course but will
be used in CE
Course PSO
Students
obj 1-6 and
IPC Obj. 1 – 5
Project
Objective 2
Faculty
Application of knowledge and
skills in other graduate level
courses (self-report)
1. Continued presence of a
champion for course delivery at
each partner university site
Draft
October 29, 2008
83% of students in the academic course indicated
that they would like to work in PSO practice
when they graduate. 11% indicated they were
uncertain.
IPODE Project Final Report
Impact
Sustainability
46
Project Obj 2
Project Partners,
Project
Management,
Steering and
Regional/Provincial
Committees
Project Obj. 1
and 2
Faculty/Project
Partners
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
1. Continued presence of
current stakeholder
participation in
Continuing Education
Initiative
2. Presence of new
stakeholders in future
projects
The number and diversity of
people attending the national
meeting
Intent for meeting of
academic and clinical
faculty following national
meeting
The number of abstracts at
national conferences related
of psychosocial oncology
from an IP point of view.
The number of University
Calendars in Canada listing
the Interprofessional
Psychosocial Oncology
course
Formal linkage with CSCC
Change in CAPO Standards
related to education
The number of publications
regarding the IPODE project
in national and international
journals
Project Objectives:
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
47
1) To develop an innovative approach to interprofessional education in psychosocial oncology at the post-licensure level in both
English and French using blended, distance technologies. The outcome will be an introductory course that can be offered as a graduate
level elective at the partner universities and adapted as a professional development option to be offered through CAPO/ACOP.
2) Within the CAPO/ACOP Education Committee mandate, to establish a Canadian network of psychosocial oncology educators and
researchers committed to enhancing the health of Canadians and their family members who are affected by cancer through
collaborative and interprofessional education initiatives.
Course Objectives:
Psychosocial Oncology Objectives
1. Explore the illness experience of cancer as both a chronic and life-threatening illness from a patient/family* centered perspective.
2. Analyze theoretical and empirical issues in psychosocial oncology.
3. Explore personal thoughts and feelings in the area of living and dying with cancer, and the ways in which these can become
avenues of personal and professional growth.
4. Develop knowledge and skills to assess individuals and families from a psychosocial and spiritual perspective and to develop a
collaborative patient/family centered plan of care that is responsive to patient/family needs.
5. Critique evidenced-based interventions that foster healing and facilitate coping in the face of psychosocial and spiritual distress.
Approaches include psychoeducational, cognitive-behavioral, family systems, mind-body, existential, spiritual and the arts. Social
determinants of health are understood to be important determinants of healing and coping and will also be explored.
6. Acknowledge and attend to aspects of diversity and understand how these might influence the experience of cancer and the health
care system.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
48
Interprofessional Collaboration Objectives
1. Analyze the unique contributions of each discipline in psychosocial oncology, as well as areas of commonality across
disciplines.
2. Develop theoretical understandings of collaboration and interprofessional team work, including forming and maintaining
interprofessional relationships and teams and conflict management strategies.
3. Understand the roles, regulatory frameworks, responsibilities and professional capabilities of members of other professions.
4. Develop self awareness, cultural competency and relational practices for effective interprofessional team work, as well as
awareness of personal strengths and areas of growth.
5. Analyze practice environments and their influence on team collaboration and provision of care. “Practice environment” is
understood to include community.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
49
Description of Evaluation Levels
Level
Description
Reaction
This level is primarily focused on key stakeholders satisfaction with the design, content and delivery
of the course. Satisfaction with process for course development will also be measured with
appropriate stakeholders. A second level of reaction will focus on the perceived utility value or
usefulness of the training for subsequent job performance.
This level will focus on capturing the theories, principles, facts and techniques that are understood
and internalized by the students and faculty. Course objectives have been designed to reflect a range
of learning in the cognitive domain. Data from the variety of evaluation strategies built into the
course will assist in reflecting a range of learning outcomes for students. Evaluation of the problem
and case based learning activities will also reflect higher order cognitive skills such as development
of collaboration, problem solving and critical thinking skills.
Learning
Transfer
Impact
The faculty leading this course represents the establishment of a new team with a variety of academic
and disciplinary background and experiences. This evaluation level will also capture new knowledge
and skills gained by faculty through participation in this experience.
The transfer level examines the extent to which students, faculty and key stakeholders put their newly
gained knowledge and skills to work. It is recognized that students enrolling in this pilot version of
the academic course may not be on the Psychosocial Oncology Specialists career path, however, it is
expected that the knowledge and experiences gained through this course will influence their future
clinical, academic or research practice.
A major outcome of the IPODE Project is to establish a Canadian network of psychosocial oncology
educators and researchers committed to enhancing the health of Canadians and their family members
who are affected by cancer through collaborative and interprofessional education initiatives. This
level of analysis will examine the broader impact of the Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology
Course and the IPODE Project in meeting this outcome.
References
Alliger, G., Tannenbaum, S., Bennett, W., Traver, H., Shotland, A. (1997) A meta-analysis of the relations among training criteria. Personnel Psychology,50;
341-358.
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
50
Appendix F
Performance Measurement Matrix
Examples
IECPCP Performance Category
Performance Indicators
New tools, educational modules and
models
New interprofessional educational modules developed
Alternatives and Cost Effectiveness
One graduate / post-licensure level course in
Psychosocial Oncology developed with input from
more than twenty experts across disciplines. More
than 50 learning resources (e.g. text modules, case
studies, dramatizations) were created for the course.
New interprofessional tools developed (e.g. SCRIPTS,
faculty development tools, research measurement tools etc.)
Faculty guide produced for interprofessional online
courses in IPODE project
Interprofessional "best practices" identified and/or developed
Faculty identified and shared strategies for
facilitating interprofessional seminar groups online
Identification of overlap with other federal,
provincial/territorial and regional/local programs and
initiatives
High demand for the academic and CE versions of
the course confirmed the view that this course fills a
unique role; no overlap identified.
Course complements an existing program in
Psychosocial Oncology Research Training (PORT)
in 4 universities: McGill, Manitoba, UBC,
Dalhousie.
Identification of best practices in place in other countries
Participating Organizations cost of administering Initiative
(Tracking of in-kind contribution)
Draft
October 29, 2008
Early links formed with Nordic countries ( via
Sweden conference)
In-kind contributions are estimated to be:
Dalhousie University BLS site = $35,000/year
Capital Health Research Services $17,544 per year
Professional fees of partners and leads: =$78,669
Total per year ongoing in – kind support ~$131,213
IPODE Project Final Report
51
sources) as a result of IECPCP investment
Awareness of the benefits of
using interprofessional teams
by students, educators, health
care providers, P/Ts, external
stakeholders (regulatory
bodies, volunteer,
professional) and patients.
level of awareness by educators and students of benefits of using
interprofessional teams
level of awareness and understanding of best practices in
interprofessional education and /or collaborative practice by
educators, students, P/Ts, practitioners and health care providers
level of awareness by P/Ts of benefits of using interprofessional
teams
level of awareness by practitioners and health care providers of
benefits of using interprofessional teams
level of awareness by external stakeholders (regulatory bodies,
volunteer, professional) of benefits of using interprofessional
teams
Draft
October 29, 2008
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer grant
($206,000) received to develop second PSO course
(2008-2009)
Results from surveys of both university students and
health professionals in the CE option suggest that IPE is
highly valuable (see IPODE Evaluation Framework and
Summary of Findings).
An external evaluation was conducted to identify areas of
compliance and suggestions for improvement against webbased learning best practices (Appendix M)
Addressed in Expert panels
Based on evaluation of CE course by participants, IPE and
IPP highly valued. Better appreciation of the work and
scope of other professionals reported.
IPODE Project Final Report
52
level of awareness by patients of benefits of using
interprofessional teams
# of KTND (Knowledge Transfer, Networking and
Dissemination) activities undertaken and the audiences attending
these functions
- # of workshops
- # of presentations
See also Appendix H of Final Report
8 posters at 8 different national and international
conferences; 7 podium presentations at 3 national and
international conferences; 4 published abstracts; 2 invited
presentations.
- # of conferences
Several manuscripts in preparation
- # of press releases
- # of published articles of the benefits of using
interprofessional teams
- # of published articles relating to best practices in
interprofessional education and/or collaborative practice
articles published on websites dedicated to Inter-collaborative
approaches
Success against
IECPCP Logic
Model Outcomes
Mechanisms developed to increase sharing of best practices, lessons
learned across network of educators, health care providers, provinces and
territories (health and education ministries) i.e. Conferences, publications,
fact sheets, etc.
Draft
October 29, 2008
Bi-weekly online faculty meetings during course term
Development of Annual one-day conference to be held
in conjunction with the CAPO conference to link
educators, health care providers and researchers in
psychosocial oncology.
IPODE Project Final Report
53
Number of events that promote sharing of best practices, lessons learned
across network of educators, health care providers, provinces and
territories (health and education ministries)
Provincial/territorial educational policies reflecting/including IECPCP
Increase in the number of health professional to teach and precept
Interprofessional collaborative practice teams
5 IPODE faculty members now have experience of
online IP learning environment and are committed to
sharing their expertise.
An additional 14 potential faculty members identified to
teach IPODE courses in rotation. Few of these are
experienced in IPE but are willing to participate in
faculty development opportunities created through the
course.
Level of adoption of interprofessional collaborative practice models by
health P/Ts
Level of adoption / uptake of interprofessional standards and guidelines
by external stakeholder groups
Increase in the number of educators trained and able to precept
interprofessional student teams
Number of educational organizations offering interprofessional
education curricula
Draft
October 29, 2008
As noted above, 5 IPODE faculty members now have
experience of online IP learning environment and are
committed to sharing their expertise. An additional 14
faculty are prepared to teach and engage in faculty
development in this area.
IPODE course approved for credit in 7 different
universities with 7 additional universities currently
IPODE Project Final Report
54
considering approval of the course or committed to
offering the course through transfer credit agreements.
One large health region exploring how to offer the CE
version of the course to large numbers of staff with
additional focus on team building in their region.
Number of students enrolled in educational organizations offering
interprofessional education curricula
25 students from 8 universities and 5 professions
completed the first graduate level course in the winter
term of 2008 (from 6 provinces)
Number of practice settings offering interprofessional treatment
approaches to patient care
27 Health professionals from 25 practice settings
completed first CE course and are currently applying
their IPE in those settings
Beginning of regional plans for CE (ON)
Level of patient satisfaction (responsiveness, quality, timeliness etc.)
Draft
October 29, 2008
Not assessed
IPODE Project Final Report
55
5 faculty involved with students in the courses- 2 more
faculty provided online support. 15 educators contributed to
the content of the course. Additional 14 faculty members
preparing to teach in future offerings of the course.
Increased capacity &
adoption
# of students participating in interprofessional project activities
25 completed first IPODE graduate course in winter 2008,
similar enrollment predicted for winter 2009
Second IPODE course under development
45 IPODE project key stakeholders have participated in
project Expert panels
activities
20 contributors to module content
CE course completion by 27 health care providers
f external stakeholders (regulatory bodies, volunteer,
professional) participating in interprofessional project activities
CAPO committed to sustaining IPODE through oversight;
Universities providing faculty & students, Health centers or
RHAs providing support (time & financial commitments)
for health professionals to complete the IPODE course.
5 faculty now with experience of collaborating to facilitate
student learning in the IPODE course with 14 more to be
added to the faculty roster.
collaborative practice teams
ctice settings offering interprofessional treatment approaches
to patient care
Draft
October 29, 2008
IPODE Project Final Report
56
IECPCP
Level of adoption of interprofessional collaborative practice models,
and interprofessional standards and guidelines developed
Design and Delivery of
the IECPCP Initiative
required to support the achievement of IECPCP outcomes
Dedicated administrative staff required for ongoing course
support –beyond the capacity of research grant budgets in
the long term. Education is structured under provincial
jurisdiction. Difficult to fund national initiatives under
present funding structures.
Increased satisfaction
High levels of satisfaction of students, health professionals
and faculty identified in survey feedback. See IPODE
Evaluation Framework and Summary of Findings
(Appendix E of Final Report)
Increased satisfaction levels of :
- Students
- Health Care providers
- Patients
- Educators
Draft
October 29, 2008
57
Appendix G
National Meetings
IPODE Project
National Meeting November 8-9, 2007
Report Summary
On November 8-9, 2007 the IPODE project held a national meeting in Toronto with 37
participants from 7 provinces. Clinicians, university educators and administrators from
within the project as well as invited guests participated in this 1.5 day meeting. The goal of
the meeting was to develop a sustainability plan for the IPODE course(s). In preparation for
the meeting designated invitees were asked to collect information in response to the
following questions:
 What interfaculty or interprofessional initiatives are there within your university? How do
they work (structure & process?)
 What inter-university initiatives does your university participate in? How do they work?
 What inter-university online initiatives is your university involved with?
The first evening provided an informal opportunity for attendees to meet each other and to
explore the course, “Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology: Introduction to Theory and
Practice”. Dr. David McCoy of First Leadership Limited facilitated the full day meeting
using an appreciative inquiry process. The goal of the inquiry was to develop a vision for
inter-university collaboration for interprofessional psychosocial oncology education. We
explored root causes and opportunities for success, the values that inform successful
collaborations and wishes for future collaboration. We ended the day with an exploration of
the question: What needs to happen to sustain the inter-university collaboration necessary to
for psychosocial oncology education beyond the demonstration project.
A number of priorities for sustainability were identified:
 Creation of a national group for planning and oversight of the psychosocial oncology
course(s).
 Inclusion of interprofessional psychosocial oncology education in standards and guidelines,
including accreditation standards for professional education and for cancer programs.
 Commitments from our university and clinical cancer agency partners regarding
contributions to course operations.
Evaluations of the day suggested that it was a very useful beginning.
There were a number of “actionable items” that participants agreed to follow through on,
which including such things as initiating discussions with faculties and administrators who
had not yet been involved, participating in “spreading the word”, championing the course and
recruiting learners, advocating for inclusion of psychosocial oncology education with regard
to standards and guidelines, and exploring potential additional partnerships. One thing that
participants asked for was an opportunity to learn more about the course content and process.
Draft
October 29, 2008
58
A “Sneak Peak” course website will be created and guest passwords can be provided for
those who are interested.
List of Attendees at 1st National IPODE Meeting
WESTERN REGION
Carole Robinson
Grant Charles
Guy Pelletier
Helen MacRae
Jeannette Waegemakers
Schiff
Stephanie Hubbard
Lynda G. Balneaves
Lisa Lamont
Bejoy Thomas
Jill Taylor-Brown
ONTARIO
Susan Cadell
Doris Howell
Mary Elliott
Corinne Schroder
Associate Professor
University of British Columbia Okanagan
Associate Principal (Research) of the College of Health
Disciplines
Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work and Family
Studies
Co-ordinator of Field Education
University of British Columbia
Clinical Psychologist
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Cancer Centre
Clinical Psychologist
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Cancer Centre
Faculty of Social Work
University of Calgary
Advanced Practice Nurse
Tom Baker Cancer Centre
Assistant Professor and CCS Research Scientist
Nursing and Health Behaviour Research Unit
UBC School of Nursing
Clinical Social Worker
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Centre
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Centre, Holy Cross Site
Patient and Family Support Services
Cancer Care Manitoba
Associate Professor Faculty of Social Work
Wilfred Laurier University
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto
Oncology Clinical Track Leader, ACNP program
Staff Psychiatrist and Head of Resident Training, Department
of Psychosocial Resources and Palliative Care, Princess
Margaret Hospital
Assistant Professor, Department of Oncology and Family
Medicine - Director, Palliative Care Medicine Residency
Draft
October 29, 2008
59
Program, Queen's University Palliative Care Services
ATLANTIC REGION
Pamela Faulkner-Baker
Karen Tamlyn
Ruth Martin-Misener
Jody Clarke
Linda McAlpine
Brenda Richard
QUEBEC
Carmen Loiselle
Josée Savard
Lise Fillion
Serge Dumont
SPECIAL GUESTS
Ivy Oandasan
Louise Nasmith
Gail Storr
Carolyn Watters
Anne Kearney
Shirley Solberg
Karen Fergus
Health Services Consultant, Canadian Council on Health
Services Accreditation
Professor & Assistant Dean, Undergraduate programs, Faculty
of Nursing, UNB
Associate Director, Graduate Programs, School of Nursing,
Dalhousie University
Professor of Pastoral Studies and Director of Supervised Field
Education, Atlantic School of Theology
Patient Representative
Associate Professor, School of Social Work, Dalhousie
University
Director, McGill Oncology Nursing Program
CIHR/NCIC PORT Program Leader
Assistant Professor, McGill School of Nursing
Senior Researcher SMBD Jewish General Hospital
Professor, School of Psychology, Laval University
Professor, Faculty of Nursing, Laval University
Director, School Social Work, Université Laval
Clinical Studies Resource Centre Member
Toronto Western Research Institute (TWRI)
Principal of the College of Health Disciplines at UBC
Assistant Dean for Faculty of Graduate & Advanced Studies
UNB
Dean Faculty Graduate Studies Dalhousie
MUN
MUN
U of T
IPODE Project
National Meeting May 6, 2008
Report Summary
Draft
October 29, 2008
60
The second national IPODE Project meeting was held in Halifax Nova Scotia on May 6,
2008. The purpose of the meeting was to update project partners regarding the project
activities to date and to use round table working groups to focus on three areas:
I Sustainability
Goals:
1. To discuss and extend the plan described in the background materials provided with
regard to feasibility.
2. To brainstorm other possibilities to increase in-kind and financial support to fund a
national IPODE Faculty meeting, faculty remuneration and a national co-ordinator.
Background:
The discussions around sustainability for the introductory course as a university credit and as
a continuing education offering have been ongoing. A significant amount of work on this
topic was completed at our last national meeting. We have come to the following ideas:
 The university elective (Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology: Introduction to Theory
and Practice) will continue to be offered annually in the winter semester. There are 12-14
partner universities who could hold about 4 students positions each, across disciplines. The
partner universities will not pay any outside body for the course. However, we would
expect in return for having access to the course, that each university will contribute faculty
time, with one professor to teach in the course once every 2nd year, depending on the
number of students from their university. If a given university wished to have more student
positions, they would be expected to provide faculty to accommodate the increased number.
Faculty that teach in a given year will be financially supported for travel to a national
meeting of the IPODE project, which will be held each year in conjunction with CAPO.
 The continuing education option will be offered twice annually, in the Fall and in the
Spring. Some university faculty may elect to teach this course if they are not teaching the
university elective that year. Other potential teachers will be drawn from clinical cancer
agencies associated with the project. Teachers will be remunerated as above, with annual
travel funds to attend a national IPODE meeting in conjunction with CAPO. We are hoping
that the clinical cancer agencies will support this teaching work as one component of work
load.
 For every 2 year cycle of course offerings we will require approximately 30 teachers, if
each person teaches one course every second year.
 The time for a faculty member to teach a seminar group of 8-12 students is estimated to be
4 hours per week (somewhat less if the course is familiar; somewhat more if not familiar
with the course) (Estimate: 13 weeks X 4 hrs = 52 hrs).
 A co-ordinating committee is being formed as part of the Education Committee of the
Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO). This group will be responsible
for planning for course offerings, reviewing and updating the course and offering faculty
Draft
October 29, 2008
61
development opportunities. The committee will be supported by a national administrative
co-ordinator and a faculty development consultant.
 Funds to hire the co-ordinator, the consultant and for the national meeting will be raised
through course fees for the continuing education course, which is anticipated to be ~
$550/participant including course materials such as a reading package. We hope to be able
to sustain this initiative with these funds. However, additional funds to develop more
courses (the long term goal is 3-5) and clinical training opportunities will be needed. This
will allow us to create a certificate program. Funding for the second course (Families in
Oncology and Palliative Care) has been received from the Canadian Partnership Against
Cancer. Theses monies will end in March 2009.
Points of Discussion:
1. Discuss the possibility of your agency supporting the above plan. Would
administrators provide in-kind support? Financial support? Why or why not? What
would persuade them to do so?
2. What other sources of financial support might be available?
3. What barriers and opportunities do you see in the plan?
4. What are the logistical challenges at the university level do you see? At the clinical
cancer agency level?
5. Is the continuing education course fee reasonable?
Outcome: There was general agreement that the sustainability plan may work. Formal
agreements are needed. In addition creating centers of excellence through funding
opportunities would sustain research, including fellowships. Key champions will be
necessary in every partner agency. The course fee was seen as reasonable but may in fact be
too low.
II - IPODE New Course: Families in Oncology & Palliative Care
Goal: Brainstorm ideas for the new course to be developed within IPODE II “Families in
Oncology and Palliative Care”.
Discuss the following questions:
1. What should be included in the course?
Process: Each person around the table will identify one concept/topic/theory that
should be included in the course; continue going around the table until no new
ideas emerge. Review the list and prioritize the top 10-12 topics.
2. How might a clinical component be included? Identify key goals for that component
as well as pre-requisites.
Draft
October 29, 2008
62
3. Identify key theoretical foundations for the course.
4. Draft the course description (2-4 sentences).
5. Identify additional experts who are not participating in this round table discussion
who might contribute to course content brainstorming via a Delphi process
Process: Each person at the round table to identify 1 or 2 people, with their contact
info if possible.
Outcome: This round table group generated a list of ideas regarding course content and
process which became the foundation for the Delphi study that was conducted by email. The
list of Delphi contacts became a starting point.
III - Faculty Development
Goal:
To discuss faculty development needs for faculty teaching the Introductory IPODE course.
To identify potential components of a teacher’s manual for the course.
Discuss the following:
 Discuss the joys and tribulations of teaching a web based course; an interprofessional
course.
 Identify personal learning needs for teaching a course like the IPODE course. What would
you need to get started (new teachers); what do you need to get better (current teachers).
 If we were to create faculty development opportunities, what would be useful? E.g.
workshops, on-line meeting, a teacher’s manual. Briefly outline the content and process for
each possibility.
Outcome: An outline for faculty development opportunities.
Draft
October 29, 2008
63
List of Attendees at 2nd National IPODE Meeting
Carole Robinson
Associate Professor, Faculty of Health and
Btritish
Social Development ( Nursing)
Columbia
University of British Columbia, Okanagan
carole.robinson@ubc.ca
Sarah Sample
Counsellor, BC Cancer Agency’s Patient And
Family Counselling Unit
ssample@bccancer.bc.ca
Guy Pelletier
Clnical Psychologist,
Alberta
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB
guypelle@cancerboard.ab.ca
Nancy Moules
Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing
University of Calgary
njmoules@shaw.ca
Shelley Raffin
Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing,
University of Calgary
raffin@ucalgary.ca
Helen MacRae
Clinical Psychologist
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB
helenmac@cancerboard.ab.ca
Jeannette
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Social Work
Waegemakers Schiff
University of Calgary
schiff@ucalgary.ca
Bejoy Thomas
Post-doctoral fellow
Department of Psychosocial Resources
Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, AB
tombejoy@cancerboard.ab.ca
Tom Hack
Associate Professor, Faculty of Nursing,
Manitoba
University of Manitoba
thack@sbrc.ca
Esther Green
Chief Nursing Officer,
Ontario
Cancer Care Ontario
esther.green@cancercare.on.ca
Doris Howell
Asistant Professor, University of Toronto and
Oncology Nursing Research,
University Health Network, Toronto, ON
Doris.Howell@uhn.on.ca
Serge Dumont
Co-Lead IPODE Project
Quebec
Doyen, école de service social
Université Laval
Serge.Dumont@svs.ulaval.ca
Lise Fillion
Professeur agrégé,
faculté des sciences infirmieres
Université Laval
Draft
October 29, 2008
64
Zeev Rosberger
Newfoundland Shirley Solberg
and Labrador
New
Brunswick
Karen Tamlyn
Nova Scotia
Jody Clarke
Janice Howes
lise.fillion@fsi.ulaval.ca
Director, Psychology Division
SMBD-Jewish General Hospital
zeev@ego.psych.mcgill.ca
Associate Director Graduate Programs &
Research, School of Nursing,
Memorial University
ssolberg@mun.ca
Professor and Assistant Dean, Faculty of
Nursing, University of New Brunswick
tamlyn@unb.ca
Professor of Pastoral Studies and Director ot
Supervised Field Education,
Atlantic School of Theology
jodyclarke@eastlink.ca
Psychologist, Department of Psychology, QEII
Health Sciences Centre
Halifax, NS
PSYJLH@cdha.nshealth.ca
Linda McAlpine
Brenda Richard
IPODE
Course
Faculty
Susan Cadell
Patient representative,
IPODE Project Atlantic Expert panel
mcalpinel@apsea.ca
Associate Professor, School of Social Work
Dalhousie University
Brenda.Richard@dal.ca
Associate Professor, Lyle S. Hallman Faculty
of Social Work and Director; Manul Center
for Healthy Living
Wilfrid Laurier University
scadell@wlu.ca
Kathy Edmison
Chaplin,
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Odette Cancer Centre , Toronto ON
Kathy.Edmison@sunnybrook.ca
Mary Elliott
Staff Psychiatrist & Head of Resident Training
Department of Psychosocial Resources and
Palliative Care, Toronto, ON
Mary.Elliott@uhn.on.ca
Karen Fergus
Psychologist Consultant
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Odette Cancer Centre, Toronto ON
karen.fergus@sunnybrook.ca
Deborah McLeod
Co-Lead, IPODE Project
Clinician Scientist ( Nursing), Capital Health
Cancer Care Program, Professor, School of
Draft
October 29, 2008
65
Guests
Mark Doreen
David Mercer
Mary Jane Esplen
Patricia Sullivan
Vickie Sullivan
IPODE TEAM
Janet Curran
Nursing, Dalhousie University
deborahl.mcleod@cdha.nshealth.ca
Medical Oncologist, Nova Scotia Cancer
Centre,
Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University
CCMSD@cdha.nshealth.ca
Health Education Strategist
(Post-Secondary Education)
Universities and Colleges Division
Higher Education Branch
Nova Scotia Department of Education
Email: mercerdf@gov.ns.ca
President, CAPO
Behavioral Sciences and Health
Toronto General Research Institute, UHN
mesplen@uhnres.utoronto.ca
Director, School of Nursing
Dalhousie University
Pat.Sullivan@Dal.Ca
Director, Nova Scotia Cancer Centre
CCVLS@cdha.nshealth.ca
Research consultant
janet.curran@iwk.nshealth.ca
Karyne Gelinas
Research Administrative Coordinator
GELINASK@cdha.nshealth.ca
Maureen White
Reseach Associate/Project Manger
maureen.white@cdha.nshealth.ca
Draft
October 29, 2008
66
Appendix H
Presentations
Posters
Charles, G, McLeod, D.L., Dumont, C, & White, M. Celebrating Diversity in Psychosocial
Oncology Education: Early Results from the IPODE Project, Oral poster presentation, All
Together Better Health Conference, June 4, 2008, Stockholm, Sweden.
McLeod, D.L, Dumont, S. The interprofessional psychosocial oncology distance education
project. Presented at the American Psychosocial Oncology Society 5th Annual Conference,
March 1, 2008.
Curran, J. McLeod, D & White, M. Evaluating an Innovative National Interprofessional
Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education Project, oral poster presentation, Sunbelt
XXVIII Conference, International Network for Social Network Analysis, St. Pete’s, Florida,
January 26, 2008.
McLeod, D, Dumont, S, White, M. Interprofessional Practice in Psychosocial Oncology
(IPODE) poster and oral showcase presentations, Project Showcase meeting, CIHC Eastern
Region, Halifax, January 29, 2008.
McLeod, D.L., Dumont, S. and the IPODE Project Partners. The interprofessional
psychosocial oncology distance education project. Presented at the “Making Connections: A
Canadian Cancer research Conference Celebrating NCIC’s 60th Anniversary. November 16,
2007 in Toronto
McLeod, D.L, Dumont, S. and the IPODE Project partners. The interprofessional
psychosocial oncology distance education project: Findings of the Focus Group Study.
Presented at the International Psycho-Oncology Society 10th World Congress of PsychoOncology, London, UK, September, 2007
McLeod, D.L, Dumont, S. and the IPODE Project partners. The interprofessional
psychosocial oncology distance education project: Findings of the Focus Group Study.
Presented at National Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of Psychosocial
Oncology, Winnipeg, May, 2007.
McLeod, D, Dumont, S, White, M IPODE Project/ Projet ÉDOPI, poster presentation,
Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC) Inaugural Meeting, Toronto,
November 28, 2006
Podium Presentations & Symposia
McLeod, D.L. The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE)
Project: Advanced Practice Nurses in Psychosocial Oncology. International Society of
Draft
October 29, 2008
67
Nurses in Cancer Care, Singapore, August 20, 2008.
McLeod, D. (moderator): Developing a Community of Practice in Psychosocial Oncology
Education: Results from the Canadian IPODE Project. 60 Minute symposium. International
Psycho-Oncology Society, 10th World Congress of Psycho-Oncology, Madrid, Spain, June 913, 2008.
Paper 1: Deborah McLeod & Serge Dumont, The IPODE Project: Overview and
focus group findings.
Paper 2: Maureen White, Deborah McLeod & Serge Dumont. The IPODE course
design and evaluation.
Paper 3: Janet Curran, Deborah McLeod, Serge Dumont & Maureen White, The
IPODE Project: Evaluation of a community of practice using social network analysis.
McLeod, D. (moderator): Celebrating Diversity in Psychosocial Oncology Education: Early
Results from the IPODE Project, 90 Minute symposium, Taking Diversity into Account:
Issues in Psychosocial Oncology, Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of
Psychosocial Oncology, May 8, 2008, Halifax, NS
Paper 1: Deborah McLeod & Serge Dumont, IPODE project overview and focus
group findings.
Paper 2: Maureen White, Deborah McLeod & Serge Dumont IPODE course design
and development
Paper 3: Janet Curran, Deborah McLeod, Serge Dumont & Maureen White, The
IPODE project evaluation.
Published Abstracts
McLeod, D.L, Dumont, S. (2008). The IPODE Project: Overview and Focus Group Findings.
Psycho-oncology 17(supp 2), S27.
White, M., McLeod, D. L. & Dumont, S. (2008). The IPODE course design and
development. Psycho-oncology 17 (supp 2), S28.
Curran, J., McLeod, D. L., White, M., & Dumont, S. (2008). The IPODE Project: Evaluation
of a community of practice using social network analysis. Psycho-oncology 17(supp 2), S29.
McLeod, D.L., & Dumont, S. (2007) The interprofessional psychosocial oncology distance
education project. Psycho-oncology 17(supp 1), S80.
Other Presentations (Invited)
McLeod, D. L. The IPODE Project. Presentation to the Supportive Care Oncology Network.
North Eastern Ontario Region Annual Meeting, Sudbury, ON, October 24, 2008.
Draft
October 29, 2008
68
White, M. The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE)
Project/ Projet d’Éducation à Distance en Oncologie Psychosociale Interprofessionelle
(ÉDOPI), oral presentation, CDHA Research Rounds, February 19, 2008, Halifax, NS.
Draft
October 29, 2008
69
Appendix I
Survey Sample
Student Questionnaire
(pre-course online survey – CE Course
Please complete the following items as honestly as possible. All results will be treated in the strictest
confidence- data will be de-identified before any dissemination. This information will be greatly
appreciated for the purposes of research as well as to develop a new interprofessional psychosocial
oncology curriculum. Please direct any inquiries to Debbie McLeod, phone 902-473-2964, email
deborahl.mcleod@cdha.nshealth.ca. Thank you very much for your contribution.
1. Name:
2. Age:
3. Gender: Female Male
4. What Is your practice discipline?(please tick one box) Medicine Nursing Psychology
Social Work Spiritual Care Other?
5. How many years have you been practicing in your discipline?  less than a year  1
– 3 years
 4 – 6 years  greater than 6 years  have practiced in a student capacity
only
6. Have you taken any other graduate level interprofessional courses in the past? Yes No
7. Have you taken any other web based distance courses in the past? Yes No
8. Have you taken any other graduate level interprofessional web based distance
courses in the past? Yes No
9. Please identify three key reasons you have chosen to participate in this course:



10. Please write down what you understand by the term ‘psychosocial oncology’:
11. Please write down what you understand by the term ‘interprofessional
collaboration’:
12. Please identify the three most important factors that you believe facilitate effective
interprofessional collaboration:



13. Please identify the three most important factors that you believe impede or hinder
effective interprofessional collaboration:
Draft
October 29, 2008
70



14. Please identify three key reasons you believe it is important to improve
interprofessional collaboration in psychosocial oncology:



15. Please identify three of your personal areas of strength you believe would
contribute to effective interprofessional collaboration:



16. Please identify three of your personal areas of weakness you believe would hinder
effective interprofessional collaboration:



17. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by
ticking one box only.
Statement
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Uncertain
Disagree Strongly
Disagree
1. I expect to develop my own interprofessional
skills during this course (eg skills in working effectively
and collaboratively with members of other health professions)
2. I expect to develop my own interprofessional
knowledge during this course (eg knowledge of the
roles and capabilities of other health professionals, principles
of effective collaboration)
3. I need to improve my interprofessional
effectiveness (knowledge, skills)
4. I generally feel high levels of respect for ‘other’
health professions (‘other’ being either medical,
nursing, social work, psychology, spiritual care)
5. I generally feel highly respected by students from
‘other’ health professions
6. I generally feel highly respected by practitioners
from ‘other’ health professions
7. I believe I am highly effective at interprofessional
collaboration
Statement
8. I generally feel that I have similar values to those
Draft
October 29, 2008
71
from ‘other’ health professions
9. Effective interprofessional practice is becoming
increasingly important for all health professions
10. I feel misunderstood by practitioners from ‘other’
health professions
11. I feel misunderstood by students from ‘other’
health professions
12. I would like to work in a psychosocial oncology
practice setting when I graduate
13. Improving interprofessional practice is likely to
improve patient health outcomes
14. Other health professions are reluctant to share
responsibilities that have traditionally been theirs
alone
15. I feel confident interacting with students from
‘other’ health professions
16. I feel confident interacting with practitioners from
‘other’ health professions
17. The culture of my profession is very different to
the culture of ‘other’ health professions
18. I expect to find this course personally satisfying
19. I can identify several ways to improve the
effectiveness of my interprofessional
collaboration
20. I usually gain high levels of satisfaction from my
interprofessional interactions
21. Interprofessional education should be a core part
every health professional’s core education
22. Interprofessional education should be a core part
every health professional’s continuing
education
23. I expect to interact more with the faculty and
students from my own profession than faculty
and students from ‘other’ health professions
24. I feel comfortable about the idea of being
mentored by faculty from another health
profession
25. I feel comfortable about the idea of learning from
a student or practitioner from another health
profession
26. I have a comprehensive understanding of the
roles of other health professionals
Draft
October 29, 2008
72
Appendix J
Survey Findings University Course
To be inserted
Draft
October 29, 2008
73
Appendix K
Survey Findings CE Course
To be inserted
Draft
October 29, 2008
74
Appendix L
Select Survey Findings Contrasting Academic: Continuing Education
IPC Items
Item
I believe I am highly effective at IP collaboration
I need to improve my IP effectiveness
I can identify ways to improve the effectiveness
of my IP collaboration
I would like to work in PSO practice when I
graduate
I am confident interacting with practitioners from
other disciplines
I feel misunderstood by practitioners from other
health disciplines
Evaluation of Web Tools
Item
The discussion board was easy to use
The discussion board was an important element in
course delivery
The website was easy to navigate
The layout of the course content on the website
was intuitive
The email tool was easy to use
Faculty Evaluation
Item
Faculty were readily accessible to me during
the course
Faculty offered adequate support during the
course
Faculty were knowledgeable regarding
course content
I received feedback in a timely manner
The feedback I received contributed to my
learning
% agreement
pre course
(n=34)
65
79
68
% agreement
post course
(n=34)
74
71
82
56
74
85
94
18
.08
Academic
course (n=18)
% agreement
94%
71%
CE course
(n=19)
% agreement
68%
68%
88%
88%
79%
53%
76%
53%
Academic
course(n=18)
% agreement
94%
CE course
% agreement
(n=19)
68%
94%
68%
94%
95%
94%
88%
63%
74%
Draft
October 29, 2008
75
Evaluation of Learning Strategies/Resources
Item
Academic course
% agreement
(n=18)
The reading assignments contributed to my
94%
learning
The volume of reading was adequate
59%
The videos contributed to my learning
100%
The course assignments contributed to my
82%
learning
Small group work contributed to my learning 94%
The in depth cases contributed to my learning 88%
The interprofessional make up of the small
94%
groups contributed to my learning
Draft
October 29, 2008
CE course
% agreement
(n=19)
100%
68%
100%
74%
79%
84%
63%
76
Appendix M
External Evaluation
__________________________________________________________________
Pedagogical Evaluation:
Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Theory and Practice Online Course
August, 2008
Prepared for:
The Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE) Project
Prepared by:
Dr. Shelley Cobbett, Rn BN GnT MN EdD
Adjunct Assistant Professor, Dalhousie University School of Nursing
58 Vancouver St., Yarmouth, N.S. B5A 2P5
902-742-3542, Ext. 371 shelley.cobbett@dal.ca
Draft
October 29, 2008
77
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Evaluation Model
3
Application of Evaluation Matrix
4
Recommendations
12
Conclusions
13
References
14
Diagrams and Tables
Diagram 1: Putting the Pieces Together
4
Table 1: Evaluation Matrix
5
Draft
October 29, 2008
78
Introduction
Online learning has emerged as a viable, accessible and quality mode of learning
however it is important that online learning opportunities be assessed for the quality of
pedagogical practice that they adhere to throughout their course. The following report
presents a pedagogical evaluation of the Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Theory
and Practice Online Course. This course was developed through a Health Canada
Interprofessional Education for Collaborative Patient Centered Practice (IECPCP) grant and
includes collaboration among eight universities in seven provinces. The evaluation model is
explained and applied to the course site as well as the supporting documentation that was
received from the Project Manager, namely the student group assignment document, the
student web guide Getting Started Online, and the advertisement for the course offering.
Lastly, recommendations for course improvement, from a pedagogical perspective, are
discussed.
Evaluation Model
The model used to evaluate the pedagogical aspects of the IPODE course, from a
student perspective, is one component of a conceptual framework that was created to
examine good, online teaching and learning. The conceptual framework includes three
components: technology, pedagogy and environment (online and institution). The framework
is a synthesis of the current literature related to online education and was tested in a doctoral
dissertation titled Nursing Education Online: Pedagogical Practice and Professional
Socialization (Cobbett, 2006). The specific focus of this evaluation is related to good, online
pedagogical practices, from a student perspective and incorporates the indicators of good
practice (Chickering & Gamson, 1987) that emerged from the research that were applicable
Draft
October 29, 2008
79
to online pedagogy. The model, Putting the Pieces Together: A Re-Conceptualized Model of
Good Online Teaching and Learning Practices (Cobbett, 2006), includes 5 components,
namely, communicative learning, teacher, student, informed confidence, and, knowing and
sharing. These components, and their respective indicators, form the basis for this evaluation
and are graphically depicted in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1: Putting the Pieces Together: A Re-Conceptualized model of Good Online
Teaching and Learning Practices
Teacher
Informed
Confidence
Communicative
Learning
Knowing
&
Sharing
Student
Application of the Model
The table on the proceeding pages includes the components of the above model with
each of the indicators, re-phrased for an objective perspective. The IPODE course site was
evaluated using each indicator and was found to be either present (yes), absent (no) or unable
to assess. Supporting documentation is included with each of the indicators.
Draft
October 29, 2008
80
Table 1: Evaluation Matrix
COMPONENT
Communicative
Learning
INDICATORS
EVALUATION
YES
NO
UTA
X
1. Students in this course had the
opportunity to interact with persons
from other nations/disciplines.
EVIDENCE
Five disciplines were represented:
nursing, social work, medicine,
psychology and spiritual care
2. Students are assisted to set
challenging goals for their own learning.
X
3. Students are asked to explain difficult
ideas to each other.
X
Using guided activities and exercises, the
small groups have opportunities to learn
from, with and about each other.
4. Students are encouraged to challenge
faculty ideas, the ideas of other students,
or those presented in readings and
course material.
X
Discussion questions were provided to
offer students direction related to the
content they were learning and to think
about the thoughts and ideas of other
students and how they may differ from
their own.
5. Students are asked to discuss key
concepts with other students whose
backgrounds and viewpoints are
different from their own.
X
The objectives of the course include a
focus on interprofessional and
transprofessional collaboration and
problem solving skills.
Draft
October 29, 2008
X
Students are expected to do independent
work for the various units however there
was no indication that students were
asked to set goals independently.
81
6. Students are to schedule conferences
with faculty to discuss their progress.
X
No evidence to support this indicator
however each student was assigned a
faculty contact person.
7. Faculty serve as a mentor or informal
advisor to students.
X
Each student group was designated an
advisor as well as a course professor for
each university.
8. The students experience with this
course was strengthened by the diverse
cultural and socio-economic
backgrounds of the students.
X
Student backgrounds were diversified
among 5 professions, from seven
different Canadian provinces.
9. Meaningful communication is
encouraged between faculty and the
students.
X
Students were required to participate in
bi-weekly group meetings with advance
preparation, discussion, raising points,
questions and supporting team process.
10. Students are asked to summarize
similarities and differences among
different theorists, research findings, or
artistic works.
X
Unit discussion questions required
students to summarize the readings and
offer alternative research and/or
explanations for the differences they
identified.
11. Diverse teaching strategies are
evident to address a broad spectrum of
students.
X
Several strategies were used throughout
the course: case-based learning, small
group work, independent work, selfreflection, case studies, video-taped
interviews and dramatizations.
Draft
October 29, 2008
82
12. Students are asked to present their
work to the class.
Student
Collaboration
Students were required to post their
project online for all to view prior to the
final teleconference.
Students were divided into 5 groups and
were required to meet 7 times over the
duration of the course via voice direct in
BLS. Schedule was prepared and
distributed to students at the beginning of
the course.
X
1. The emphasis on working in groups
has helped my students understand the
ideas and concepts being taught.
X
2. Students are encouraged to work in
groups.
X
3. This course taught students how to
work in a team/group to complete a
project.
X
During the group meetings students were
to identify behaviors and attitudes that
were exhibited by their group that
contributed to collaborative practice and
those that may have hindered the process.
4. Students are taught how to overcome
the difficulties of working in
teams/groups.
X
Students are to work with other
professions and learn to tolerate
differences, misunderstandings and
shortcomings to facilitate
interprofessional collaboration.
5. Students are encouraged to suggest
new readings, research projects, field
trips, or other course activities.
X
Students are to contribute regularly and
meaningfully to online discussions,
suggest additional resources related to the
unit content and to discuss any other
articles that they found interesting to
share with other students.
6. Comments on assignments and/or
exams are returned within 1 week.
X
Draft
October 29, 2008
No time line stated when assignments
will be marked and returned.
83
Teacher
1. Students are told the minimum
amount of time they should spend
preparing for class.
X
No evidence to support this indicator.
2. Students are clear about the amount of
time that is required to understand
complex material.
X
No evidence to support this indicator.
3. Students are encouraged to spend
more time focused on their studies.
X
No evidence to support this indicator.
4. Students are able to work through
course materials at their own pace.
X
One module covers 2 weeks of content
and other than the synchronous bi-weekly
group meetings, students can work
through the material at their own pace but
within the designated time lines.
5. Course expectations are made clear at
the beginning of each course.
X
Course objectives and expectations were
made clear at the beginning of the course
in a pre-course packet as well as on the
course site however objectives need to be
one-dimensional and the marking criteria
needs to be clearer.
6. Students are advised about career
opportunities in their major field.
X
Draft
October 29, 2008
This may have occurred through
discussion boards or informal discussions
during the course however the evaluator
was not privy to the discussion board
content related to issues of
confidentiality.
84
7. There are opportunities for students to
receive immediate feedback on some
learning activities.
Informed
Confidence
1. The importance of holding high
standards for academic achievement is
emphasized.
X
Inherent throughout course, for example,
in reflection paper rubric related to a
grade of an ‘A’.
X
2. Students are told that they are
expected to work hard in this course.
Unable to assess but the assumption is
made that immediate feedback occurred
on the discussion board as well as
through private email related to student
questions and/or learning activities.
X
Students were not specifically told this
however it is inherent in a graduate level
university course.
3. The importance of regular work,
steady applications, sound self-pacing,
and scheduling are emphasized.
X
Students were provided with the course
outline and weekly requirements at the
beginning of the course to enable good
time management.
4. Extra material or exercises are
provided for students who lack essential
background knowledge or skills.
X
A range of supplemental online learning
resources were provided and designed for
those students who may not have the
specific background. For example, a
biomedical model to understand cancer
and therapeutic relationships and
communication.
5. Research projects are done
collaboratively with students.
X
Students were required to complete a
research project collaboratively as part of
the course requirements.
Draft
October 29, 2008
85
Knowing and
Sharing
6. Students are given detailed evaluation
of their work early in the term.
X
Unable to assess indicator.
7. Students’ confidence is nurtured in
relation to their ability to learn the
subject matter.
X
Data used to assess this indicator would
be included in the discussion postings
which the evaluator did not have access
to related to confidentiality reasons.
Students were required to complete their
roster at the beginning of the course.
1. Information related to students’
learning styles, interests or backgrounds
are sought at the beginning of each
course.
X
2. Academic success of all students on
the course is a priority.
X
As evidenced by the detailed course
syllabus, evaluation and the Getting
Started Online booklet.
3. Students are told the consequences of
not contributing to the weekly course
content.
X
Course participation is worth 15% of the
final mark and students are required to
make weekly visits to the site, contribute
to the discussion board, and participate in
the biweekly-group meetings. However,
the course participation criteria are
weighted heavily on quantity of postings
rather than quality.
4. Information about the students in this
course as a person, not just as a student,
is known and shared.
X
Prior to the first group meeting students
are to review the biographies posted by
their group members and identify
commonalities and differences (besides
their respective disciplines).
Draft
October 29, 2008
86
6. Faculty share past experiences,
attitudes, and values with students.
X
All faculty created a roster for students to
view.
7. Students are encouraged to praise
each other for their accomplishments.
X
Students were expected to create a safe
learning environment for themselves and
their colleagues.
8. Students are encouraged to take
responsibility for their own learning.
X
Inherent in the nature of an online, as
well as a graduate level, course is that
students are required to take
responsibility for their own learning.
Draft
October 29, 2008
87
Recommendations
The course site was found to contain almost all of the indicators of good online pedagogical
practice. Research has supported the Model from a pedagogical perspective and there is evidence to
demonstrate that for good, online learning to occur then the indicators of communicative learning
need to be present. The amount of indicators from the other four dimensions that are present are
directly related to the quality of the learning experience- thus, the more indicators that are present,
the greater the quality of the online course. The IPODE project members are encouraged to complete
the assessment of the indicators that the evaluator was not able to assess related to the lack of access
to the discussion board postings because of confidentiality reasons. The following recommendations
for course site improvement are indicated:
1. Course objectives were often multi-dimensional and should be rewritten to address only one
behavior.
2. Psychosocial Oncology Objective # 5 includes details of how to meet the objective and
should be removed.
3. The term paper details are scant and should offer more direction to students.
4. Course participation evaluation form should focus more on quality rather than quantity of
student postings.
5. Online virtual office hours should be considered, for example, faculty will be available
online Monday’s from 1300-1400 for the duration of the course.
6. Evaluation component # 1 from course syllabus needs to be clear whether the reflection
papers are due weeks 2, 3 and 5 or modules 2, 3 and 5.
7. Ensure rubrics are created for all of the assignments as indicated in the course syllabus
(unable to locate a rubric for the group project).
Draft
October 29, 2008
88
8. Course credit hours and numerical marking scheme needs to be included on the course site.
That is, what numerical marks constitute an A, B, etc.
Conclusion
Overall the course site adheres to the majority of the principles and identified practices
related to good online education. This report has applied an evaluation matrix that was created from
good teaching and learning practices that were evident in the current literature and evolved from
current research related to good online pedagogical practices. The majority of the recommendations
only require minor alterations to the course site and/or course delivery. The course is one that
demonstrates an excellent example of quality online education, adhering to best practices in online
education.
Draft
October 29, 2008
89
References
Chickering, A., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate
education. American Association for Higher Education Bulletin, 39(7),
3-7.
Cobbett, S. (2006). Nursing education online: Pedagogical practice and professional
socialization. Doctoral dissertation, CSU: Wagga Wagga, Australia
Draft
October 29, 2008
90
Appendix N
Lessons Learned by Domain
Domain
Innovation/Evaluation
Key Lessons
INSIGHTS: There is a high level of interest in web-based,
interprofessional, graduate level education in Psychosocial
Oncology (PSO). We see this as influenced by 1) gaps in PSO
education generally; 2) the use of a web-based format, which
increases accessibility.
The innovative use of patient/family narratives in a variety of
forms is a useful and powerful approach to enhancing learning
for patient/family centered care.
Thematic analysis of focus group data can be enhanced using
Atlas.ti software which enables coding directly from the
recorded voices of participants
Social Network Analysis ( SNA) is an innovative approach for
understanding the complexity in establishing networks and
communities of practice
CHALLENGES: Connecting with stakeholders in a
meaningful and timely way to enhance course innovations.
Health Systems
Benefit/Sustainability
INSIGHTS: There is a will, across Canada, to engage in
setting up infrastructure in educational and health care
institutions to sustain the IPODE course, as evidenced from our
national meeting proceedings.
CAPO is a key partner in the sustainability efforts.
CHALLENGES: Expect complex and lengthy negotiations in
a national project; especially in areas where education, health
system and policy intersect ( e.g. personnel, resource
allocation, ethical reviews)
Communication/Dissemination
INSIGHTS: A broad approach is required for sustained
communication in this project (email, telephone, website,
newsletters and face-face-meetings). SNA can point to areas
where communication is thriving and areas where more
emphasis or creativity is needed.
There is a broad interest in the work of the project as evidenced
Draft
October 29, 2008
91
by the acceptance of abstracts at a variety of national and
international conferences, as well as invited presentations.
CHALLENGES: Developing and sustaining effective
communication with such a complex network is challenging
and resource intensive.
Health Care Provider
Experience
INSIGHTS: Health professionals across areas of practice can
provide clear directions for course approaches.
Focus groups were an effective approach to gathering this
knowledge and had the added benefit of increasing the profile
of, and interest in, the IPODE project and course.
CAPO is a key linkage in the network for health care providers,
both as course participants, course developers/evaluators and
potential faculty.
CHALLENGES: Developing support from health care
agencies for staff time to participate in the continuing
education (CE) version of the course.
Patient Experience
INSIGHTS: Clear directions for course approaches came from
the patient/family focus groups. It was very important to these
participants to be asked to comment on what they thought
health professionals need to know. They particularly wanted
health professionals to understand their experience of cancer,
as well as to understand how to support them.
Patient/ family members on stakeholder committees express
appreciation for opportunity to “have a voice” in an ongoing
way. They inspire and help others to maintain a patient
centered focus (what to include, what to leave out, how to
describe family issues, provide narratives for student learning).
Many health professionals working in cancer care and
participating on the project are in the dual role of patient and
professional.
CHALLENGES: Balancing the need to respect energy and
privacy needs of patient /family participants with project needs
to consult
Learner Experience
INSIGHTS: Clear directions were provided for course
approaches from past and current students registered in related
programs. High level of interest in course ( >60 students
inquired, 37 registered for the university credit course pilot).
Draft
October 29, 2008
92
CHALLENGES:
Early trends suggest that students with full-time study and
work commitments experience difficulty in committing to even
90 minutes of interactive learning every 2 weeks when times
are in the 0800-1800 time frame.
Likewise, the work load for the CE version of the course is
challenging. However, those who completed the course found it
to be a worthwhile investment of time.
Educator Experience
INSIGHTS: Educators who participated in focus groups
conducted during phase were able to provide clear directions
for course content and process.
Pre course focus groups that were completed with course
faculty served as an important needs assessment for faculty
development needs. The 3 key areas needed for faculty
interprofessional education in a team teaching environment
were: mutual respect; valuing difference; open communication.
Focus groups also were a forum to article their philosophy
about education and IPE as well as express their support needs
related to the course facilitation. E.g. a faculty website was
created, b-weekly meetings were held during the course and
additional IPE expertise was recruited.
CHALLENGES: Time for educators to participate in both
teaching and evaluating the course is significant. It is important
to track this time as carefully as possible.
Suggested additional domain:
Administrative Experience
INSIGHTS:
Infrastructure for interprofessional education initiatives across
regions is growing. For example, agreements exist for transfer
of credits between many universities BUT (despite the
existence of the “ Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement:
Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans” since 1998)
only 2 of the 8 Research Ethics board submissions required for
this project were assisted by a reciprocal arrangement.
CHALLENGES Recruitment and retention: hiring
appropriate research project staff for innovative projects results
in short term assignments of people with constantly evolving
roles. High turn over is inevitable and resource-draining in this
situation
Draft
October 29, 2008