Download
1 / 21
210 likes | 330 Views
IP Course Development, Evaluation and Learning Outcomes. Tiina Tervaskanto-Mäentausta, Senior Lecturer, Oulu University of Applied Sciences, Finland. Why IPE? WHO: 1987 Learning together to work together for health.
E N D
IP Course Development, Evaluation and Learning Outcomes Tiina Tervaskanto-Mäentausta, Senior Lecturer, Oulu University of Applied Sciences, Finland
Why IPE?WHO:1987 Learning together to work together for health 2010Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice Download [pdf 2.27 MB] At a time when the world is facing a shortage of health workers, policymakers are looking for innovative strategies that can help them develop policy and programmes to bolster the global health workforce. The Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice highlights the current status of interprofessional collaboration around the world, identifies the mechanisms that shape successful collaborative teamwork and outlines a series of action items that policy-makers can apply within their local health system. The goal of the Framework is to provide strategies and ideas that will help health policy-makers implement the elements of interprofessional education and collaborative practice that will be most beneficial in their own jurisdiction.
Background The School of Health and Social Care, University of Applied Sciences, and Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oulu, developed the first common interprofessional course named Public health and interprofessional collaboration 3 credit points. The course was carried out first time in autumn 2007 and then yearly, improved by students’ feedback.
Aims of the joint course are that • Students familiarise themselves with: • Premises of health promotion and interprofessional collaboration • Challenges of Finnish public health • Action of health and social welfare systems and national strategies and programs guiding them • Means of health promotion and an idea of early intervention in different levels and age groups: individual, family, community and society • Evidence based databases concerning health promotion and scientific writing • The main ethical principles of health care professionals
Challenges 1) Big interprofessional group from two different universities 2) First semester students, how to motivate and activate them to the contents of the course 3) Two organisations, several curricula and timetables 4) Tutors from two organisations – different backgrounds 5 tutors from the both universities, 10 together 5) Teaching / learning methods From traditional lectures to interactive methods 6) Making clear rules Learning tasks, final dates etc. Tutoring the students equally
Implementation • Lectures partly as team teaching • Workshop (IPC and patient centered services), based on video clips • 4 weekly discussion tasks in web platform guided by tutor; side material in platform • Weekly f2f meetings with the group; summary of the discussions • Writing an personal essay • Writing with a small group a common abstract for the students conference • Participating s. conference and preparing/ keeping oral or poster presentation with own group • + filling the web based evaluation form
eLearning tasks and family cases Example of the tasks: • TASK 1 • wellbeing and health of children and their families in Finland • Which are the strenghts of the familie? • Which are the main health risks? • Where the familie gets support and resources to eveday living? • Find the links and information. Tell your opinions in learning platform. What kind of services a familie can get in its living situaltion? Reflect the above questions to it
LEINONEN FAMILY Family is living in Nivala in a small, rural town. Family members are mother Maila, father Ville and their seven children. Maila and Ville are working at home as farmers. The oldest daughters are already living on their own. Family has invested to farm and they do not have much money to use. This is really stressful for them. - Ville has good physical condition, some small problems with blood pressure, these have been monitored in the health care center for a year - Maila has some problems with back pain and neck. She has had some rehabilitation from occupational health - Oldest daughter is working as nurse in Viitasaari, Middle Finland - Twin girls are living and studying in Helsinki (special education and speech therapy) - Boys are in primary school and vocational education. They all have problems with learning skills. - Youngest child has down syndrome. She is in special education which is integrated in primary school. - Grandfather is living at the same household, but he has his own apartment. He used to live in Spain, become an alcoholic and had to come back to Finland because of health problems. Family is taking care of grandfather, who needs help with activities of daily living every day. Ville 59, father Maila 58, mother Anni 33 Anelma and Lyyli 26 Taneli 18, Timo 15, Veikko 13, Tytti 10 Nestori – grand- father 81 (Ville´s father)
PIRINEN FAMILY Piritta is a teen aged mother from Kemi. She has seven months old twins. Babies father Jere is in prison at the moment because of crimes with drugs. Piritta and Jere are not dating with each other. Piritta has poor relationship with her parents. Also relationship with her sisters is not so close, because they are studying in the different town. Piritta don´t have any good friends. Piritta 17 Matias and Maija 7 months Jere 23 Grandmother, Sanni 67 Grandfather, Esko 75 Paula 45v. Pentti 48v. Pirjo 21v. Pauli 25v. • After having the babies Piritta was living in mother and child home shelter for three months. Piritta has no good friends. Grandmother is the closest and dearest person. • Jere keeps contact with Piritta and babies. • Grandmother has been supporting Piritta a lot. Grandfather had a stroke and grandmother is taking care of him at home. • - Pirittas parents are both working a lot since Piritta was a small girl. They haven´t had time for Piritta. For Paula and Pentti the parenthood is not something that they are interested in. Pentti is sometimes really stressed and have had appointments with doctor because of sleeping problems.
Aim of the study • The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of the development process based on the feedback of the students: • Used teaching methods • Learning outcomes of the students
Results 2007 eLearning part PLUS – Information and material was easily available – Writing helped structure own thinking – Functional, comfortable and easy – Activates most silent students to discussions as well – No limits to discussions and changing ideas MINUS – eLearning period too long and boring, motivation got low – Too much to read because of big group – Discussions too popular and opinion based – Group work difficult in the web – Is it possible to learn cooperation in web?
Results 2007 The Student Congress – Was the best part of the course – Got a lot of new information – Program was clear and it ran the time – The students had done really good work – Good to meet my group – There should be a possibility to choose the sessions and presentations – Sessions were interactive – I waited catastrophe but it was a positive fresh experience
Challenges 2007 • Tasks: • better-defined instructions • Structure of the platform: • simplify links and structure, motivation to participate, more guiding and orientation to use the platform • Interprofessionalism: • More small group meetings getting to know each other better • Group meetings: • More face to face meetings • Writing abstract: • Platform is difficult / platform is a dexterous tool for it
Development tasks According to the feedback of the first and second courses: • Right in the beginning the students were divided into ten groups (30 students and a tutor). • Group meetings at the beginning and once a week during the four eLearning weeks. • A workshop based on video clips for a compensation of 2 traditional lectures • A test of essential contents of the lectures and workshop (filled in platform) • A written info material of the tasks, duties of the students and tutors, dead lines, compensatory tasks, forms of essays and abstracts & practical advise of the student conference • pedagogical support to the tutors
Results 2010 • The evaluation of the learning outcomes indicated that the improvement has been effective. • The students assessed their communication and learning much higher than in the fist course. • Another important result was that the students’ own activity correlated most to the learning outcomes. There were differences between the degree program students.
