Table 2 Pre- and post- mean scores and differences on survey scales for interprofessional collaboration and competencies among VIP-CARES Project students
Interprofessional (IP) Attitudes section adapted from Memorial University Questionnaire (Five point Likert Scale: 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) | Mean score of all participants before M (SD) | Mean score of all participants after M (SD) | Mean score differences for each participant M d (SD d ) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Number of completed surveys | n = 26 | n = 26 | ||
IP learning will help students to understand their own professional limitations. | 4.4 (0.6) | 4.5 (0.6) | 0.0 (0.7) | 1.00 |
Developing an IP patient/client care plan is excessively time consuming. | 2.6 (0.8) | 2.3 (0.8) | −0.3 (0.9) | 0.11 |
The IP approach makes the delivery of care more efficient. | 4.2 (0.7) | 4.2 (0.5) | 0.0 (0.6) | 0.74 |
Developing a care plan with other team members avoids errors in delivering care. | 4.2 (0.7) | 4.3 (0.7) | +0.2 (0.7) | 0.20 |
Working in an IP manner unnecessarily complicates things most of the time. | 1.8 (0.5) | 1.8 (0.6) | +0.1 (0.8) | 0.44 |
The IP approach improves the quality of care to patients/clients. | 4.6 (0.5) | 4.3 (0.7) | −0.3 (0.7) | 0.02a |
In most instances, the time required for IP consultations could be better spent in other ways. | 2.0 (0.7) | 2.0 (0.7) | −0.2 (0.9) | 0.44 |
IP approach permits health professionals to meet the needs of family caregivers as well as patients. | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.0 (0.7) | 0.0 (0.9) | 0.83 |
Team meetings foster communication among team members from different disciplines. | 4.1 (0.6) | 4.4 (0.6) | +0.2 (0.9) | 0.18 |
IP learning will help students think positively about other health care professionals. | 4.3 (0.6) | 4.3 (0.8) | 0.0 (0.8) | 0.81 |
Clinical info can only be learned effectively when taught within one’s own department. | 1.9 (0.9) | 1.8 (0.6) | −0.1 (0.7) | 0.74 |
Students in my professional group would benefit from IP small group projects. | 4.2 (0.8) | 4.2 (0.7) | +0.1 (0.7) | 0.37 |
It is not necessary for undergraduate health care students to learn together. | 1.8 (0.7) | 1.7 (0.7) | −0.1 (0.6) | 0.48 |
IP work before qualification would improve working relationships after qualification. | 4.2 (0.6) | 4.2 (0.9) | 0.0 (1.0) | 0.78 |
IP work helps undergraduates to become more effective team members. | 4.3 (0.6) | 4.3 (0.9) | 0.0 (1.1) | 0.64 |
Competencies from the CanMEDS section (Ten point Likert Scale: 1 = Below Expections, 10 = Exceptional) | ||||
Number of completed surveys | n = 26 | n = 26 | ||
Communicator | 6.4 (0.6) | 6.7 (1.2) | +0.3 (0.9) | 0.12 |
Collaborator | 6.7 (1.2) | 6.9 (1.1) | +0.3 (1.0) | 0.18 |
Health Advocate | 6.2 (1.2) | 6.8 (1.3) | +0.5 (1.1) | 0.05a |
Manager | 5.6 (1.5) | 6.3 (1.3) | +0.6 (1.1) | 0.02a |
Medical Expert | 5.0 (1.1) | 5.7 (1.4) | +0.6 (1.3) | 0.03a |
Professional | 7.3 (1.4) | 7.2 (1.1) | −0.1 (0.9) | 0.64 |
Scholar | 6.3 (1.3) | 6.8 (1.5) | +0.4 (1.6) | 0.19 |
Competencies from the CIHC section (Ten point Likert Scale: 1 = Below Expections, 10 = Exceptional) | ||||
Number of completed surveys | n = 22 | n = 26 | ||
Interprofessional Communication | 6.2 (1.2) | 7.0 (1.2) | +0.7 (1.6) | 0.04a |
Patient Centered Care | 6.5 (1.2) | 6.9 (1.5) | +0.4 (1.3) | 0.24 |
Role Clarification | 6.0 (1.3) | 7.0 (1.3) | +0.9 (1.3) | 0.01a |
Team Functioning | 6.3 (1.3) | 7.2 (1.5) | +0.8 (1.7) | 0.05a |
Collaborative Leadership | 5.9 (1.1) | 6.9 (1.4) | +0.9 (1.4) | 0.01a |
Interprofessional Conflict Resolution | 5.7 (1.5) | 6.2 (1.6) | +0.6 (1.5) | 0.10 |