4.1 Article

The ASPIRE Model: Grounding the IPEC core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice within a foundational framework

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 128-132

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/13561820.2019.1624513

关键词

Interprofessional collaboration; interprofessional education; collaborative competence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaborative practice (ICP) are essential to achieving high-quality patient care. Leading IPE/ICP requires training in new knowledge and skills that most health professions faculty and clinicians lack. To guide this training, the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) defined interprofessional collaboration through four core competencies: (a) Values/Ethics for Interprofessional Practice, (b) Roles/Responsibilities, (c) Interprofessional Communication, and (d) Teams and Teamwork. For IPE/ICP training to be effective, it is necessary to identify new educational models that provide an operational framework for these competencies. The University of Virginia (UVA) ASPIRE Model is a new paradigm for developing IPE/ICP educational experiences. It was created by mapping the IPEC competencies to three overlapping curricular content areas: (a) Practical Tools, (b) Leadership, and (c) Relational Factors. This model shows the relationship among the four IPEC core competencies and corresponding sub-competency statements and their inclusion in one or more of these three curricular content areas. The UVA ASPIRE Model was empirically tested as an approach to provide IPE/ICP training through real-world application for clinicians and faculty participating in an intensive team development program. Positive evaluations and improved capabilities of learners to apply their new knowledge and skills to solving real-world clinical challenges revealed that the UVA ASPIRE Model is an effective approach to embed the IPEC competencies in the design of IPE/ICP educational activities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据