4.5 Article

Early introduction to interprofessional learning: a simulated ward environment

Journal

MEDICAL EDUCATION
Volume 37, Issue 3, Pages 248-255

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01439.x

Keywords

education, medical, methods; clinical competence; teaching, standards; interprofessional relations; curriculum; Great Britain

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To develop an interprofessional simulated ward environment for junior medical and nursing students and to identify themes for future evaluations and modify criteria for formative assessment of the exercise. Subjects Second year medical and nursing students. Setting The multiprofessional Clinical Skills Centre at the Faculty of Medicine, and Nursing, University of Dundee, Scotland. Method A simulated ward environment was created in the Clinical Skills Centre around patients with common medical conditions. Students were allocated to interprofessional teams and, after a briefing given in the form of a ward report, were asked to take responsibility for the ward for 'a shift'. Observers from the Schools of Medicine and Nursing charted their progress in relation to evidence of collaborative team working, effective leadership, the ability to prioritise workload and competence in clinical performance. Evaluations of the exercise were taken from all participants. The criteria for formative assessment were reviewed by the observers after the exercise and a focus group was used to generate additional criteria and modify those piloted. Results The exercise was perceived positively by all participating groups. Themes for evaluation of future exercises and modified criteria for future assessment were identified. Conclusions The exercise gave students their first experience of participating independently in a realistic and safe operational ward setting. It proved to be a powerful learning experience for the students.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available