Advertisement

A Delphi Study to Determine Leveling of the Interprofessional Core Competencies for Four Levels of Interprofessional Practice

  • Mary L. KoehnEmail author
  • Stephen C. Charles
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Although the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Education (IPE) provide guidance in developing interprofessional learning experiences, the literature is sparse in how to incorporate them across varying levels of learning activities. Thus, the purpose of this study was to explore consensus for leveling the IPEC Core Competencies for use across four levels of interprofessional practice. Initially, Benner’s novice to expert theory was used to develop a leveling document for planning educational experiences appropriate for pre-licensure through practice learners. Using this document, a Delphi study was conducted to gain consensus on leveling the Core Competencies.

Methods

A modified Delphi technique was employed using an expert panel of 48 healthcare faculty experienced in interprofessional education. Participants were asked to select their opinion of the level of learner for which each of the competencies were most appropriate.

Results

After three rounds of questionnaires, 34 of the 38 competencies achieved consensus at a 70% agreement. Four competencies did not reach consensus.

Conclusions

Using a developmental approach, this study provides a foundational point for establishing guidelines for progressive organization and consistency in interprofessional learning activities. Although four competencies did not reach consensus, the results suggest that leveling is possible. Ongoing research is needed to further validate or revise the findings from this study.

Keywords

Interprofessional education Core competencies Learner leveling Competency leveling 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge and thank those interprofessional education experts who agreed to participate in this study. We also wish to acknowledge the contributing work of our colleagues who are co-members of HealthSim United, a non-profit organization formed to facilitate simulation that is “always interprofessional” and “always has family presence.”

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The institutional review boards of the authors’ associated universities approved the study. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: report of an expert panel. Washington, D.C.2011.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kamen C, Veilleux JC, Bangen KJ, VanderVeen JW, Klonoff EA. Climbing the stairway to competency: trainee perspectives on competency development. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2010;4(4):227–34.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021092.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Eskes AM, Maaskant JM, Holloway S, Dijk N, Alves P, Legemate DA, et al. Competencies of specialised wound care nurses: a European Delphi study. Int Wound J. 2014;11(6):665–74 10p.  https://doi.org/10.1111/iwj.12027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kang J, Kim Y, Yoo YS, Choi JY, Koh SJ, Jho HJ, et al. Developing competencies for multidisciplinary hospice and palliative care professionals in Korea. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21(10):2707–17 11p.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-013-1850-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buys T. Professional competencies in vocational rehabilitation: results of a Delphi study. SAJOT. 2015;45(3):48–54 7p.  https://doi.org/10.17159/2310-3833/2015/v45n3/a9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kozmenko V, Bye EJ, Simanton E, Lindemann J, Schellpfeffer SE. The optimal time to institute interprofessional education in the medical school curriculum. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27(2):259–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lairamore C, Morris D, Schichtl R, George-Paschal L, Martens H, Maragakis A, et al. Impact of team composition on student perceptions of interprofessional teamwork: a 6-year cohort study. J Interprof Care. 2018;32(2):143–50.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1366895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fouad NA, Grus CL, Hatcher RL, Kaslow NJ, Hutchings PS, Madson MB, et al. Competency benchmarks: a model for understanding and measuring competence in professional psychology across training levels. Train Educ Prof Psychol. 2009;3(4, Suppl):S5–S26.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015832.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Barton AJ, Armstrong G, Preheim G, Gelman SB, Andrus LC. A national Delphi to determine developmental progression of quality and safety competencies in nursing education. Nurs Outlook. 2009;57:313–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wood V, Flavell A, Vanstolk D, Bainbridge L, Nasmith L. The road to collaboration: developing an interprofessional competency framework. J Interprof Care. 2009;23(6):621–9.  https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820903051477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salari S, Klapman S, Fry B, Hamel S. Interprofessional education: in silo, ineffective. Med Sci Educ. 2017;27(4):831–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-017-0471-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1984.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holton E, Knowles M, Swanson R. The adult learner: the definitive classic in adult education and human resource development. 6th ed. Boston: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benner P. From novice to expert: excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. Menlo Park CA: Addison-Wesley; 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Staggers N, Gassert CA, Curran C. A Delphi study to determine informatics competencies for nurses at four levels of practice. Nurs Res. 2002;51(6):383–90 8p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Busenhart CA. “Leveling core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice” for learners. Lawrence: University of Kansas; 2014.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Avella JR. Delphi panels: research design, procedures, advantages, and challenges. IJDS. 2016;11(1):305–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hsu C-C, Sandford BA. The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12(10):1–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Custer RL, Scarcella JA, Stewart B. The modified Delphi technique—a rotational modification. J Vocat Tech Educ . 1999;15(2).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Finkelman A, Kenner C. Teaching IOM: implications of the Institute of Medicine reports for nursing education. Silver Spring, MD: Nursesbooks.org; 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Interprofessional Education Collaborative, editor. Team-based competencies: building a shared foundation for education and clincial practice. Interprofessional Education Collaborative; 2011 February 16–17; Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Qualtrics. Qualtrics. 2016 ed. Provo, Utah 2016.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rivera R Jr. Assessing community reintegration in adolescents and young adults with spinal cord injury: a Delphi study. Denton: Texas Woman’s University; 2013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wynaden D, Heslop K, Omari OA, Nelson D, Osmond B, Taylor M, et al. Identifying mental health nursing research priorities: a Delphi study. Contemp Nurse. 2014;47(1–2):16–26.  https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.2014.47.1-2.16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice: 2016 update. Washington, DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative 2016.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Kansas School of Medicine-WichitaWichitaUSA
  2. 2.Division of Health Sciences, Office of Medical EducationEast Carolina UniversityGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations