Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorThistlethwaite, Jill E
dc.contributor.authorForman, Dawn
dc.contributor.authorMatthews, Lynda R
dc.contributor.authorRogers, Gary D
dc.contributor.authorSteketee, Carole
dc.contributor.authorYassine, Tagrid
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T15:28:37Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T15:28:37Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.identifier.issn1040-2446
dc.identifier.doi10.1097/ACM.0000000000000249
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/65092
dc.description.abstractHealth professionals need preparation and support to work in collaborative practice teams, a requirement brought about by an aging population and increases in chronic and complex diseases. Therefore, health professions education has seen the introduction of interprofessional education (IPE) competency frameworks to provide a common lens through which disciplines can understand, describe, and implement teambased practices. Whilst an admirable aim, often this has resulted in more confusion with the introduction of varying definitions about similar constructs, particularly in relation to what IPE actually means. The authors explore the nature of the terms competency and framework, while critically appraising the concept of competency frameworks and competency-based education. They distinguish between competencies for health professions that are profession specific, those that are generic, and those that may be achieved only through IPE. Four IPE frameworks are compared to consider their similarities and differences, which ultimately influence how IPE is implemented. They are the Interprofessional Capability Framework (United Kingdom), the National Interprofessional Competency Framework (Canada), the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (United States), and the Curtin University Interprofessional Capability Framework (Australia). The authors highlight the need for further discussion about establishing a common language, strengthening ways in which academic environments work with practice environments, and improving the assessment of interprofessional competencies and teamwork, including the development of assessment tools for collaborative practice. They also argue that for IPE frameworks to be genuinely useful, they need to augment existing curricula by emphasizing outcomes that might be attained only through interprofessional activity.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherLippincott Williams & Wilkins
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom869
dc.relation.ispartofpageto875
dc.relation.ispartofissue6
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAcademic Medicine
dc.relation.ispartofvolume89
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCurriculum and pedagogy
dc.subject.fieldofresearchMedicine, nursing and health curriculum and pedagogy
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3901
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode390110
dc.titleCompetencies and frameworks in interprofessional education: A comparative analysis
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorRogers, Gary
gro.griffith.authorMatthews, Lynda R.


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record