Trent Universities Interprofessional Learning in Practice

1
Trent Universities Interprofessional Learning in
Practice

• Helen Armitage Project Lead
• Penny Furness Research Fellow
• Richard Pitt Project Coordinator

http//tuilip.hwb.shu.ac.uk
2

• Barr (2000) found that work-based IPL was
  markedly more likely than college-based teaching
  to improve the quality of service and/or bring
  direct benefits to patients

3
TUILIP Project aim

• To develop sustainable models of
  interprofessional learning that will promote and
  facilitate the professional skills of students
  through collaborative working within the practice
  setting

4
13 professions

• dietetics
• medicine
• diagnostic radiography
• midwifery
• nursing
• operating department practitioners
• occupational therapy

• paramedic practice
• pharmacy
• physiotherapy
• radiotherapy
• social work
• speech and language therapy

5
TUILIP Project Outcomes

• Embed interprofessional working and learning
  within the Trent region so that all practice in
  health and social care adopts an
  interprofessional philosophy
• Enrich and inform the curricula of all
  participating professional undergraduate courses
• Provide learning opportunities for staff to
  develop appropriate skills to support
  interprofessional learning in practice

6

• Utilise the CUILU interprofessional capability
  framework (Gordon and Walsh, 2005) to formulate
  resource packages and training templates
• Evaluate the impact of the project in the pilot
  areas, comparing outcomes across the sites
• Disseminate the findings from the project and
  influence national strategy by recommending
  sustainable models of interprofessional learning

7
TUILIP Pilot Sites

• 8 across the Trent region
• Naturally occurring interprofessional
  opportunities
• IPL Facilitator secondment post/s
• Supported by Project Lead
• Service User/Carer partnership
• Evaluation of achievement of project outcomes

8
First 5 Pilot Sites

• Stroke Rehabilitation Ward
• Orthopaedic Ward
• Acute Mental Health Services
• Emergency Management Unit
• Learning Disabilities Community Support

9
New sites

• Hospital Maternity Services
• 2 GP Practices inner city and rural town
• Community Women's Health Services

10
The Role of TUILIP Project Facilitator

• Develop sustainable models of IP learning
• in the practice setting
• Influence the culture of an organisation
• Enable collaborative working that is service
  user focused

11

An example of a Model Problem based learning in
practice

• 4 week programme
• Scenario based
• Service User involvement

12
Organisational Challenges

• Agenda for Change
• Overspend in the NHS
• Reconfiguration of Banding
• Streamlining of services Department/Hospital
  closure
• Targets
• Changing roles

13

• Results from evaluation of 4 sites

14
Evaluation

• Aims
• to evaluate success of initiatives
• Process
• interviews / focus groups with key individuals
• data recorded, transcribed, theme analysed
• data collection and analysis guided by
  Kirkpatrick (1996) evaluation framework
• reaction learning
• behaviour impact / sustainability

15
ParticipantsFirst 4 sites

• 4 clinical managers (1 each site)
• 5 facilitators
• 21 qualified practitioners
• nurses, social workers, occupational therapists,
  physiotherapists, dieticians, medical
  practitioners, radiographers.
• 8 service users
• 65 learners (incl. evaluation sheets)

16
This Presentation

• Focuses on practitioner perceptions and
  experience of TUILIP initiatives
• As yet little IPL research in practice settings
  predominantly academic settings
• Previous research largely focuses on student
  experience and learning
• Need to consider impact and sustainability of IPL
  initiatives for staff and practice

17
Positive Perceptions

• Built upon what was already there
• 'formalised what we already do'
• Timely and relevant to practice
• interprofessional learning a 'hot' issue
• Facilitator role drove IPL forwards
• especially when facilitators
• worked as a team
• had local knowledge and credibility
• were dynamic, motivated and inspiring individuals

18
Concerns and Constraints

• Lack of clear focus and direction
• causing confusion and loss of momentum
• Time and priorities
• limited attendance and involvement
• client-care top priority
• Variations in support
• over time within management structure between
  different professional groups

19
Learning

• Students
• knowledge about different professional roles
• appreciation of service user experience
• confidence and skill in communication
• Service users
• confidence sense of contributing
• Practitioners
• appreciation for professional roles
• identification of new teaching resources in team
• greater insight into client experience and care

20
Impact upon Practice

• Individual working
• confidence and competence in practice
• Interprofessional working
• positive impact on team-working both within and
  beyond the pilot site
• Improvements in patient care delivery
• consistency
• organisation
• communication

21
Sustainability

• A priority from the start
• More likely in highly successful pilots
• Identifying champion after TUILIP
• relying upon already over-committed staff
• finding time and money to support them
• Taking project further
• Maintaining and developing initiatives in area.
• Using TUILIP as a 'blueprint' for other areas.

22
Tackling Sustainability

• Return to first 5 sites
• Maintaining original facilitator or key member of
  team
• Staff development
• Roll out
• Learning resources eg recording equipment,
  projector

23
References

• BARR, H. (2000) Working together to learn
  together learning together to work together.
  Journal of Interprofessional Care. 1 (2).
• GORDON, F. and WALSH, C. (2005) A framework for
  inter-professional capability developing
  students of health and social care as
  collaborative workers. Journal of Integrated Care
  13 (3) 26-33.
• KIRKPATRICK, DL (1996) Great Ideas Revisited.
  Training and Development Journal 50 (1) 54-59.