Sharpening the lens to evaluate interprofessional education and interprofessional collaboration by improving the conceptual framework: a critical discussion.

It has been difficult to demonstrate that interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) have positive effects on patient care quality, cost effectiveness of patient care, and healthcare provider satisfaction. Here we propose a detailed explanation for this difficulty based on an adjusted theory about cause and effect in the field of IPE and IPC by asking: 1) What are the critical weaknesses of the causal models predominantly used which link IPE with IPC, and IPE and IPC with final outcomes? 2) What would a more precise causal model look like? 3) Can the proposed novel model help us better understand the challenges of IPE and IPC outcome evaluations? In the format of a critical theoretical discussion, based on a critical appraisal of the literature, we first reason that a monocausal, IPE-biased view on IPC and IPC outcomes does not form a sufficient foundation for proper IPE and IPC outcome evaluations; rather, interprofessional organization (IPO) has to be considered an additional necessary cause for IPC; and factors outside of IPC additional causes for final outcomes. Second, we present an adjusted model representing the "multi-stage multi-causality" of patient, healthcare provider, and system outcomes. Third, we demonstrate the model's explanatory power by employing it to deduce why misuse of the modified Kirkpatrick classification as a causal model in IPE and IPC outcome evaluations might have led to inconclusive results in the past. We conclude by applying the derived theoretical clarification to formulate recommendations for enhancing future evaluations of IPE, IPO, and IPC. Our main recommendations: 1) Focus should be placed on a comprehensive evaluation of factual IPC as the fundamental metric and 2) A step-by-step approach should be used that separates the outcome evaluation of IPE from that of IPC in the overarching quest for proving the benefits of IPE, IPO and IPC for patients, healthcare providers, and health systems. With this critical discussion we hope to enable more effective evaluations of IPE, IPO and IPC in the future.

Developing a European longitudinal and interprofessional curriculum for clinical reasoning.

Clinical reasoning is a complex and crucial ability health professions students need to acquire during their education. Despite its importance, explicit clinical reasoning teaching is not yet implemented in most health professions educational programs. Therefore, we carried out an international and interprofessional project to plan and develop a clinical reasoning curriculum with a train-the-trainer course to support educators in teaching this curriculum to students. We developed a framework and curricular blueprint. Then we created 25 student and 7 train-the-trainer learning units and we piloted 11 of these learning units at our institutions. Learners and faculty reported high satisfaction and they also provided helpful suggestions for improvements. One of the main challenges we faced was the heterogeneous understanding of clinical reasoning within and across professions. However, we learned from each other while discussing these different views and perspectives on clinical reasoning and were able to come to a shared understanding as the basis for developing the curriculum. Our curriculum fills an important gap in the availability of explicit clinical reasoning educational materials both for students and faculty and is unique with having specialists from different countries, schools, and professions. Faculty time and time for teaching clinical reasoning in existing curricula remain important barriers for implementation of clinical reasoning teaching.

Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative and qualitative procedures are necessary components of instrument development and assessment. However, validation studies conventionally emphasise quantitative assessments while neglecting qualitative procedures. Applying both methods in a mixed methods design provides additional insights into instrument quality and more rigorous validity evidence. Drawing from an extensive review of the methodological and applied validation literature on mixed methods, we showcase our use of mixed methods for validation which applied the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility on data collected with an instrument measuring interprofessional collaboration in the context of Swiss healthcare, named the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration. METHODS: We employ a convergent parallel mixed methods design to analyse quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data. Data were collected from staff, supervisors, and patients of a university hospital and regional hospitals in the German and Italian speaking regions of Switzerland. We compare quantitative ratings and qualitative comments to evaluate the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility, which together form part of an instrument's construct validity evidence. RESULTS: Questionnaires from 435 staff, 133 supervisors, and 189 patients were collected. Analysis of congruence potentially provides explanations why respondents' comments are off topic. Convergence between quantitative ratings and qualitative comments can be interpreted as an indication of convergent validity. Credibility provides a summary evaluation of instrument quality. These quality criteria provide evidence that questions were understood as intended, provide construct validity, and also point to potential item quality issues. CONCLUSIONS: Mixed methods provide alternative means of collecting construct validity evidence. Our suggested procedures can be easily applied on empirical data and allow the congruence, convergence, and credibility of questionnaire items to be evaluated. The described procedures provide an efficient means of enhancing the rigor of an instrument and can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional quantitative psychometric approaches.

Usability and preference of electronic vs. paper and pencil OSCE checklists by examiners and influence of checklist type on missed ratings in the Swiss Federal Licensing Exam.

Background: Only a few studies with small sample sizes have compared electronic Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) rating checklists with traditional paper-based OSCE rating checklists. In this study, the examiner-perceived usability and preference for type of OSCE checklist (electronic vs. paper based) were compared, and the influence of OSCE checklist type on missed ratings was determined, for the Swiss Federal Licensing Examination in clinical skills for human medicine. Methods: All examiners in the Swiss Federal Licensing Examination in clinical skills for human medicine were invited over two subsequent years to evaluate the OSCE checklist type they had worked with during the examination. This was based on a questionnaire with 14 closed questions (i.e., demographic, checklist-type experience, perceived usability, checklist type preference). Furthermore, the numbers of missed ratings for the paper-based checklist were recorded. Results: The data from these examiners (n=377) with experience of both OSCE checklist types were analyzed. The electronic OSCE checklist was rated significantly higher on all usability aspects (i.e., ease of use, candidate rating and error correction, clarity, distraction using the checklist, overall satisfaction), except for the speed of registering comments (no significant difference). The majority of the examiners in both years (2014: 54.5%, n=60, 2015: 89.8%, n=230) reported preference for working with the electronic OSCE checklist in the future. Missed ratings were seen for 14.2% of the paper-based OSCE checklists, which were prevented with the electronic OSCE checklists. Conclusions: Electronic OSCE checklists were rated significantly more user-friendly and were preferred over paper-based OSCE checklists by a broad national sample of examiners, supporting previous results from faculty-level examinations. Furthermore, missed ratings were prevented with the electronic OSCE checklists. Overall, the use of electronic OSCE checklists is therefore advisable.

Why is it so difficult to implement a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum? A multicenter interview study on the barriers perceived by European health professions educators.

BACKGROUND: Effective clinical reasoning is a core competency of health professionals that is necessary to assure patients' safety. Unfortunately, adoption of longitudinal clinical reasoning curricula is still infrequent. This study explores the barriers that hinder the explicit teaching of clinical reasoning from a new international perspective. METHODS: The context of this study was a European project whose aim is to develop a longitudinal clinical reasoning curriculum. We collected data in semi-structured interviews with responders from several European countries who represent various health professions and have different backgrounds, roles and experience. We performed a qualitative content analysis of the gathered data and constructed a coding frame using a combined deductive/inductive approach. The identified themes were validated by parallel coding and in group discussions among project members. RESULTS: A total of 29 respondents from five European countries participated in the interviews; the majority of them represent medicine and nursing sciences. We grouped the identified barriers into eight general themes: Time, Culture, Motivation, Clinical Reasoning as a Concept, Teaching, Assessment, Infrastructure and Others. Subthemes included issues with discussing errors and providing feedback, awareness of clinical reasoning teaching methods, and tensions between the groups of professionals involved. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides an in-depth analysis of the barriers that hinder the teaching of explicit clinical reasoning. The opinions are presented from the perspective of several European higher education institutions. The identified barriers are complex and should be treated holistically due to the many interconnections between the identified barriers. Progress in implementation is hampered by the presence of reciprocal causal chains that aggravate this situation. Further research could investigate the perceptual differences between health professions regarding the barriers to clinical reasoning. The collected insights on the complexity and diversity of these barriers will help when rolling out a long-term agenda for overcoming the factors that inhibit the implementation of clinical reasoning curricula.

A fixed-links modeling approach to assess individual differences in the attentional blink: Analysis of behavioral and psychophysiological data.

The attentional blink (AB) is a fundamental limitation of the ability to select relevant information from irrelevant information. It can be observed with the detection rate in an AB task as well as with the corresponding P300 amplitude of the event-related potential. In previous research, however, correlations between these two levels of observation were weak and rather inconsistent. A possible explanation of this finding might be that multiple processes underlie the AB and, thus, obscure a possible relationship between AB-related detection rate and the corresponding P300 amplitude. The present study investigated this assumption by applying a fixed-links modeling approach to represent behavioral individual differences in the AB as a latent variable. Concurrently, this approach enabled us to control for additional sources of variance in AB performance by deriving two additional latent variables. The correlation between the latent variable reflecting behavioral individual differences in AB magnitude and a corresponding latent variable derived from the P300 amplitude was high (r=.70). Furthermore, this correlation was considerably stronger than the correlations of other behavioral measures of the AB magnitude with their psychophysiological counterparts (all rs<.40). Our findings clearly indicate that the systematic disentangling of various sources of variance by utilizing the fixed-links modeling approach is a promising tool to investigate behavioral individual differences in the AB and possible psychophysiological correlates of these individual differences.