References

Clark PG. Reflecting on reflection in interprofessional education: implications for theory and practice. J Interprof Care.. 2009; 23:(3)213-23 https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820902877195

Facilitating interaction in computer mediated online courses. http://tinyurl.com/2gbeyeu4 (accessed 2 February 2021)

Goodyear P, Zenios M. Discussion, collaborative knowledge work and epistemic fluency. British Journal of Educational Studies.. 2007; 55:(4)351-368

Lindqvist SM, Reeves S. Facilitators’ perceptions of delivering interprofessional education: a qualitative study. Med Teach.. 2007; 29:(4)403-5 https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701509662

McLendree J, Stenning K, Mayes T, Lee J, Cox R. Why observing a dialogue may benefit learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.. 1998; 14:(2)110-119

Virtual IPE: a brave new world of learning

11 February 2021
Volume 30 · Issue 3

Recently there has been a significant increase in online learning across all higher education programmes and there is a need for these to be identified and recognised as pedagogically effective. Interprofessional education (IPE) is an important approach for preparing students in the health professions to provide patient care in a collaborative team environment.

IPE has been used successfully over the past few years by the universities of Reading and West London, traditionally as face-to-face sessions that bring together nursing, midwifery, paramedic, pharmacy and operating department practitioner students. Accelerated by the recent COVID-19 pandemic, IPE sessions have moved to a virtual learning environment (VLE), with more than 200 students at each session.

IPE sessions have centred on a patient scenario and last around two hours. To ensure the taught material is representative of all professions and levels, the session lead must have an in-depth understanding of the topic to ensure it reflects practice. All professional groups contribute to the overall writing of the session material, which is adapted for an online platform. Pre-session materials are accessible one week before the session to be completed as part of an investigative activity and pre-learning.

Four roles were identified for the team creating the IPE: with pedagogical, social, managerial and technical responsibilities (Collins and Berge, 1996). Pedagogical roles include the academics and clinical staff who act as facilitators. Social roles were adopted by supporting staff, who established relationships with students during the session. Those in managerial roles performed pre-session organisational tasks; and technical staff provided support during the sessions.

Student engagement

Students are allocated to multidisciplinary breakout groups within which they can get to know each other, discuss the scenario and make a plan for assessment, treatment and management from each discipline's perspective. Belonging to a knowledge community plays a critical role in effective knowledge, building participatory engagement (Goodyear and Zenios, 2007). This method of teaching works well for social learning and vicarious learning, where learning comes from observing each other's active dialogue (McLendree et al, 1998). During the IPE, facilitators are able to move freely between the breakout groups, supporting student discussions and provoking critical thinking. Participation in the breakout group discussions was mixed with online and text discussions, enhancing communication and connection with peers and supporting learners to elaborate on their responses. One student said:

‘I think it's really good to have case-based scenarios. I always find it really beneficial to put theory into practice, and that tends to be where I do most of my learning.’

Limitations

Limitations include variations in the knowledge and experience of using the VLE platform and technical difficulties. During the session, if there is no academic or clinical partner in the ‘room’, the online environment makes it harder to gauge which groups need more ‘facilitation’ and also prevents facilitators from hearing the full conversation and correcting any misconceptions.

Future sessions

From a staff perspective, it is crucial to realistically plan the session timings, allowing extra time for students to join the session, movement into and out of breakout rooms, and contingencies for student variations in time spent undertaking each task. A thorough staff briefing and run-through on the online platform ensures smooth running and clear understanding of each staff member's role (Lindqvist and Reeves, 2007). Student preparation is also fundamental to success. In the future, sending a short ‘how-to’ video to students before the event would help limit any disruption or confusion at the start of the session.

Students must be prepared to fully interact with the session, including ensuring they have microphone access and are in a workspace where they can talk without disturbing others. Students should be prompted to reflect on their role as a health professional and their contribution to multidisciplinary patient care (Clark, 2009). Student feedback has included:

‘It's really important that everybody in the little group does contribute, because otherwise it's really hard to, like, get conversation going and to actually get the learning out of it …’

Conclusion

Interprofessional teaching in a virtual environment allows larger groups of students to interact and learn with, and from, each other, in a safe and engaging environment. One student commented:

‘I think having a learning opportunity with other professionals is really good. It's really important just to learn communication skills, and [share the] different knowledge that we have.’