Interprofessional Education Workshop - Assignment Example

The ability to create a collaborative practice is required to change the dynamics and roles of health professionals. There is a wide diversity associated within every medical field, specifically which requires the need to meet with others in the work area while assisting patients. Without the right understanding of the roles and expectations of others in the health arena, there is the inability to build the right work force to assist patients. Interprofessional education is one of the ideologies which should be expected with those in the work force. When examining the ideas of collaborative practice through the workshop incentive, it was found that the need to offer high quality care is also reliant on the ability to understand what others are expected to be a part of in the work force. The first way in which the workshop expressions show a need to fill the gap of the health profession with the right education is through the roles of each individual. In the first segment of the workshop, basic introductions and expectations of the field which one was studying was given. During this part of the workshop each individual stated their field of study and how this would be used in the profession after graduation. It could instantly be seen that there was a gap in the understanding of what each individual was doing. In one participant describing the pharmaceutical role she played, others questioned what that meant and what she would be doing. The discussion led to the need to define why the individual was in the group, how it related to medicine and what the expectations were. Even though the individual would be in a health department and team, the collaboration was limited with the inability to understand the specialization that each of the members had. If there are these gaps with the basic job descriptions and roles which each individual holds, then it won’t provide the right support for patients while working in a health professional setting. The concept of interprofessional education works by filling this gap so basic introductions of those working in the field are understood. The practice of knowing what each individual is required to do is one of the ways in which the gap is shortened while in the field. This is combined with understanding what an individual has the capacity of doing while in the field. The practice of collaboration that the education offers is the beginning to understanding the processes which each individual should go through while building a basic understanding of what the roles of the professionals are within a health setting (D’amour, Oandasan, 2005, 8). The roles of health professionals as a way to close gaps is only the first aspect of what to change with the collaboration required in the work force. The second is with understanding what the roles are among patients and the specialization which is required by each participant. An example of this from the workshop is when the psychologist begins speaking to another doctor about a patient. He requests that the second health physician check with the patient because he believes that by being next on the list the physician can finish what he was unable to catch the day before. The request is to ask general questions about the mental state of the patient and whether she is suffering from depression. The problem is that the doctor doesn’t ask the second physician her role, which is as a physical assistant and specialist. The remarks which come out are based on the physical assistant not being able to ask while she is training the patient on the treadmill. The problem is that there isn’t a defining of roles with the situation, leaving the inability to clearly know what each doctor should be doing and what the protocol for helping the patient should be. The standards for each type of doctor changes with the roles being misunderstood because of the gaps in explaining what each individual does. The problem which arises is one which could have been avoided with the proper training and education, specifically with identifying the roles of all involved with the situation. This could have easily changed with different formats of education which would have altered the situation. The first is knowledge based learning. Implementing this by changing the understanding of what the roles should be and what the boundaries are between the types of physicians and their specialties would have altered the relationship between the two doctors and the relationship to the patient. The second type of learning which could have been implemented is attitude based models. This would have allowed each to approach the other in the right manner while understanding what the attitude should have been toward the patient and others which were working in the area (Barr, 1998, 181). In this instance, the attitude would have changed the doctor from asking the other physician by understanding the role of each as well as having a different attitude toward the association with the patient and the agreements between the two during interaction. The problem then moved from the role of the other doctor, the expectations by each and the understanding of what protocol should be followed. This combined with the understanding and attitude which should have been changed toward the patient. This includes confidentiality of how the patient is treated and what information is disclosed to others about their relationship to the facility so the work of others is not hindered by the information provided. If knowledge and attitude based learning were available, the situation with the two would have been avoided. The third concept which is seen from the workshop is with the decision making and collaboration which is a part of the consultation process. In the workshop there is a process in which a patient is requested to leave within 24 hours with the belief that he is improving in health and almost ready to go back home. The doctors each have a specialized area which shows whether the health is improving or not. There is also a different perspective which each takes in terms of checking on the patient and determining whether he is ready to leave or not. This includes a series of tests which are required for the patient to check out of the home and to go back into his home without understanding whether he is ready. There are three problems which arise from the situation. The first is that each has a different perspective on the health of the patient, dependent on their monitoring of the health. The second is that the swift decision to release the patient also leads to difficulties with the patient and the doctors having the capacity to properly check the patient out. This leads into a complexity of the doctors being unable to reach a complete decision about the patient and the relationship each has to the patient. The third problem is based on a question of whether the patient is in complete health and ready to go home, all which have a disagreement on according to the patient. The lack of collaboration in this particular instance not only hinders the relationships to the doctors and the decision making which occurs. The attitudes of the doctors’ move from a decision into personal attacks about what each should be thinking in regards to the patient. By the end of the discussion there are difficulties with the dynamics in the room as each begins to attack the authority of the other and the expectations each has for the other. This is combined with tension which continues to arise because of the personal associations which each has to the other. For example, one doctor states that the tests can be done by another doctor. After this, a personal attack is made about the doctor being a secretary and not understanding what the schedule is like. This creates a dynamic of even more attacks between the doctors. By the end of the scenario, the patient’s condition and the needs are no longer validated with each of the doctor’s being interested in individual interest and expectations without the ability to reach a decision with the patient. There are several barriers which arose with the particular situation, all which could have been redefined with the proper education and the understanding of how to collaborate to others. The root of the problem is based on the factors and processes which were used by those working in the group toward the patient. When going to work with the patient, there wasn’t an analysis by each of the doctors and there wasn’t a discussion about the needs of the patient. Instead, a swift decision was made about the patient and what was expected by each to meet this. If there was interprofessional education which took place, then a procedure could have been used to examine the needs and condition of the patient. Creating a framework for the collaboration and understanding that specific attitudes and knowledge should be presented by the group would offer a thorough examination and evaluation of the patient. Without this, tension and attitudes change while quickly losing focus of the expectations and goals of the subject matter (Oandasan, Reeves, 2005, 39). The concept with knowledge based procedures for collaboration is one which would have changed the scenario with more in – depth expectations that were a part of each of the doctor’s during the discussion. There were several personal attacks and expectations for responsibilities which were expected on all of the professionals with the one patient instead of offering a different outcome that would work positively for each individual. The problem is one which led to the professionals not having the correct response with others that were working with other specialties. The main problem could have been changed with education based on understanding the responsibilities of all and collaborating with a different attitude based on the others within the work area. Creating a system based on attitudes toward others within the field would then create an alternative response with the situation would then stop the main goal from being lost. Removing the barriers that create the main problem would then help to achieve more without the conflicts that often occur with the collaboration (Gilbert, 2005, 87). The main ideology which would be created in each of the instances is based on the basic guidelines of what it means to remain professional in various instances. Combining this with an understanding of how the professionalism should focus on the patients and the need to offer the right care could help to continue to create the right attitudes and looks as a part of the group. The need to build professional partnerships and to hold a stronger interest for patients and the services offered within the medical field would then build a better foundation for working with the dynamics of the hospital or health arena. Combining this with understanding a framework for collaboration and holding guidelines would further eliminate the problems and difficulties of those working in the field. By doing this, there would be the ability to create a different level of knowledge and understanding about how to work with others in various specialties and areas without creating difficulties and complexities that may lead to the patient not receiving the proper care from another physician (McNair, 2005, 456). The concept of collaboration for health professionals is one which reaches a variety of complexities. Defining the roles of each of the professionals, understanding the problems which may arise and finding a way to keep the focus on the patient are some of the many complexities which occur. When looking at various workshop scenarios it is seen that the needs and expectations of both patients and physicians are undermined because of the lack of collaboration and understanding between others. To change this, interprofessional education is required, specifically to assist with the framework of communication in the medical field. By offering the education, knowledge and attitudes can both change. This will eliminate gaps with understanding the roles and expectations of others in the field. This will also alter the way in which the patients are cared for while offering the right treatment and attention to assist with complete recovery through each of the professionals without causing the lack of collaboration and knowledge to become problematic. References Barr, Hugh. 1998. Competent to Collaborate: Towards a Competency Based Model for Interprofessional Education. Journal of Interprofessional Care 12 (2), 181-187. Informa Healthcare http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13561829809014104 (accessed October 4, 2011). D’amour, Danielle, Ivy Oandasan. 2005. Interprofessionality as the Field of Interprofessional Practice and Interprofessional Education: An Emerging Concept. Journal of Interprofessional Care 19 (1), 8-20. Informa Healthcare. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820500081604 (accessed October 4, 2011). Gilbert, John. 2005. Interprofessional Learning and Higher Education Structural Barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care 19 (1), 87-106. Informa Healthcare. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820500067132 (accessed October 4, 2011). McNair, Ruth. 2005. The Case for Educating Health Care Students in Professionalism as the Core Content of Interprofessional Education. Medical Education 39 (5), 456-464. Wiley Online Library. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02116.x/full. (accessed October 4, 2011). Oandasan, Ivy, Scott Reeves. 2005. Key Elements of Interprofessional Education: Factors, Processes and Outcomes. Journal of Interprofessional Care 19 (1), 39-48. Informa Healthcare. http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820500081703 (accessed October 4, 2011). Read More