3.8 Article

Using interprofessional medication management simulations to impact student attitudes toward teamwork to prevent medication errors

期刊

CURRENTS IN PHARMACY TEACHING AND LEARNING
卷 10, 期 7, 页码 982-989

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cptl.2018.04.010

关键词

Simulation; Interprofessional; Medication errors; Nursing; Pharmacy; Medicine; Education

资金

  1. Shands Quasi Endowment Fund [00125861]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: We developed and implemented a project incorporating ACPE Standard 11 and all Core IPEC competencies at a public University located at a medical center. The project was a collaboration between the colleges of nursing, pharmacy, and medicine at a distance campus location. Interprofessional Education Activity: Our Interprofessional Education Activity, which targeted all three elements of ACPE Standard 11, provided TeamSTEPPS (R) training followed by four medical error simulations. A debriefing took place after each scenario within a team as well as with all four groups following each simulation session. The Teamwork Attitudes Questionnaire (TTAQ) was used to evaluate the activity. Discussion: Findings from our interprofessional education activity indicate that while students entered the activity already perceiving teamwork as a positive aspect of safe care delivery, significant improvement in attitudes post training toward specific team constructs was seen across all five domains. The project helped inform the structure of a replication of this effort that is currently underway, with a focus on embedding it in the curricula of all three programs (medicine, pharmacy, and nursing) across campuses. Implications: In summary, working collaboratively in a team while being exposed to a series of medication management scenarios enhances teamwork attitudes as well as potentially improving performance. Based on the positive initial results, plans have begun to extend the experience to other campuses and include a wider group of students.

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

3.8
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