ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The impact of an interprofessional problem-based
learning curriculum of clinical ethics on medical
and nursing students’ attitudes and ability of
interprofessional collaboration: A pilot study
Yu-Chih Lin
a, Te-Fu Chan
b,c, Chung-Sheng Lai
b,d, Chi-Chun Chin
e,
Fan-Hao Chou
e, Hui-Ju Lin
f,*
a
Division of General Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
b
College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
c
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
d
Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
e
College of Nursing, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
f
Center of General Education, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan
Received 24 January 2011; accepted 4 February 2013 Available online 25 June 2013
KEYWORDS Clinical ethics; Clinical ethics education; Interprofessional education; Narrative story; Problem-based learning
Abstract Clinical ethic situations in modern multiprofessional healthcare systems may involve different healthcare professions who work together for patient care. The undergradu-ate interprofessional education of clinical ethics would help to incubundergradu-ate healthcare students’ ability of interprofessional collaboration in solving ethical problems. However, the impact from an interprofessional educational model on student’s attitudes and confidence of interprofes-sional collaboration should be carefully evaluated during the process of curricular develop-ment. This study aimed to conduct a pilot interprofessional PBL curriculum of clinical ethics and evaluate the curricular impact on interprofessional students’ attitude and confidence of collaborative teamwork. Thirty-six medical and nursing students volunteered to participate in this study and were divided into three groups (medical group, nursing group, and mixed group). Tutors were recruited from the Medical School and the College of Nursing. The pilot curriculum included one lecture of clinical ethics, one PBL case study with two tutorial ses-sions, and one session of group discussion and feedback. A narrative story with multiple story
* Corresponding author. Center of General Education, Kaohsiung Medical University, 100 Shih-Chuan 1st Road, Kaohsiung 80708, Taiwan. E-mail address:hjlin@kmu.edu.tw(H.-J. Lin).
1607-551X/$36 Copyrightª 2013, Kaohsiung Medical University. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.kjms.2013.05.006
Available online atwww.sciencedirect.com
lines and a multiperspective problem analysis tool were used in the PBL tutorials. The stu-dents’ self-evaluation of learning questionnaire was used to evaluate stustu-dents’ learning of clinical ethics and interprofessional collaborative skills and attitude. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was measured by Cronbacha, and the criterion-related validity of the questionnaire was evaluated through associations between the dimension scores with the stu-dent group by one-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA) test and Tukey-Kramer honestly sig-nificant difference (HSD) comparison. There was sigsig-nificant difference among different groups in students’ ability and attitudes about “interprofessional communication and collaboration” (pZ 0.0184). The scores in the mixed group (37.58 3.26) were higher than the medical group (32.10 4.98). In conclusion, our model for the interprofessional PBL curriculum of clinical ethics is practicable and will produce positive impacts on students’ attitudes and confidence of interprofessional collaboration.
Copyrightª 2013, Kaohsiung Medical University. Published by Elsevier Taiwan LLC. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Modern healthcare service involves collaborative teamwork by different healthcare professions. The interdependence and synergy of the team may improve patient outcomes and team members’ individual job satisfaction and per-formance [1,2]. Interprofessional education (IPE) for healthcare professionals has gained more and more atten-tion worldwide, and there appears to be a consensus in the published literature on the need for an interprofessional component in healthcare professionals’ education [3e5]. IPE refers to occasions when students from two or more professions learn together during all or part of their pro-fessional training with the object of cultivating collabora-tive practice for providing patient-centered care[6,7]. IPE in undergraduate education would provide students op-portunities to develop communication skills and positive attitude for their interprofessional teamwork in clinical situations [8]. The World Health Organization also acknowledged in 2010 that IPE is a necessary step in pre-paring a “collaborative practice-ready” health workforce that is better prepared to respond to local health needs
[9].
Clinical ethics is a special field of biomedical ethics that has its focus on ethical issues in clinical medicine. In everyday clinical encounters, primary care professionals and patients may disagree about values or may face choices that challenge their values[10]. Conflicts of clinical ethics occur between patients and physicians as well as between different healthcare professions. Patients, families, and different healthcare professionals have to deal with conflicts of value that can cause tremendous impacts in decision making. Any failure of communication and collaboration to overcome conflicts of value may adversely impact patient care [11]. Students of healthcare pro-fessions would need IPE for clinical ethics to better prepare themselves for dealing with conflicts of values when working in collaborative teams. However, clinical ethics curricula in the undergraduate education are usually profession-specific, and usually, there are not enough interprofessional learning opportunities in which students of different professions could solve clinical ethical prob-lems together.
Many educational strategies would provide opportunities of interprofessional learning. Among them, PBL is well-established that every medical school in Taiwan has adapt-ed it for madapt-edical students. Interprofessional PBL curriculum would be a good and feasible approach for students to foster communication and collaboration skills for solving inter-professional conflicts of value[12e16]. However, an inter-professional curriculum in undergraduate education does not necessarily lead to successful interprofessional collab-oration in later clinical life. Previous studies have shown that IPE may induce a negative attitude in students toward future interprofessional collaboration [17,18]. The professional identifications of undergraduate healthcare students are relatively immature, and the interaction of students in an interprofessional curriculum may differ from the interaction of different healthcare professions in the clinical situation. Therefore, it is very important to pay attention to the possible effects on students’ attitudes towards future interprofessional collaboration.
In Kaohsiung Medical University (KMU), the College of Nursing and the College of Medicine worked together to develop an interprofessional PBL curricular model for clin-ical ethics in 2009. The impact of curriculum on student’s attitudes and confidence in interprofessional collaboration was one of the major concerns from the steering force of curricular development. Therefore, we conducted a pilot curricular study to evaluate the curricular impact on stu-dents’ confidence and attitude of interprofessional collab-orative teamwork.
Materials and methods
Participants
Eighteen 4th-year nursing students and 18 5th-year medical students who had started their formal clinical course in hospital for <1 year were recruited for this pilot curric-ulum (nZ 36). Students were randomly arranged into six groups, with two groups of medical students, two groups of nursing students, and two groups of mixed medical and nursing students (three students in each group). Six PBL tutors experienced in teaching clinical ethics were
recruited (three tutors each from the College of Medicine and the College of Nursing; n Z 6). Two tutors from the College of Nursing joined the nursing student groups, and two tutors from the College of medicine joined the med-ical student groups. One of the tutors from the College of Nursing and another from the College of Medicine joined the mixed groups. The demographic distribution of the genders and professions of the students and tutors are shown inTable 1.
The curriculum design
The interprofessional PBL curriculum for clinical ethics consisted of a 2-hour lecture, two 2-hour PBL tutorial sessions, and a 3-hour feedback session. These four ses-sions were carried out over 4 continuous weeks. The lecture was delivered by an experienced teacher of clinical ethics to introduce foundations of clinical ethics, as well as the perspectives and ethical obligations of different roles and professions in clinical situations. During the feedback session, students completed ques-tionnaires evaluating the course and their learning. After the survey by questionnaire, student representatives from each group also gave the rest of the class an oral presentation about their learning experience and achievement.
In order to provide information regarding perspectives of different characters in the scenario, we developed a multiperspective, rich-narrative text format, which could be used in sequential sections of PBL tutorials sessions. Such multiperspective stories contained a main-line story of a third-person perspective and several sideway stories of perspectives from different characters in the scenario. Stories were written in a rich narrative format in order to provide more details of interpersonal interactions and situational information. A multiperspective problem identification tool was used for students to describe problems that different people would encounter in the scenario. By using this multiperspective approach, stu-dents had to identify and define problems from
perspectives of different professions, including their own profession. Each group was required to document their consensus on problem identification in every section of the tutorials sessions.
The students’ self-evaluation of learning questionnaire
We focused our evaluation of students on the outcome from interprofessional learning of clinical ethics and problem-based learning. A literature review to search for established assessment tools that were specific for the evaluation of interprofessional communication and collaboration in clinical ethics was carried out; we found a lack of such assessment tools, although a few question-naires have been developed for evaluation of interpro-fessional clinical practice in general[18e24]. Based on the framework of interprofessional education by the World Health Organization and the behavioral teamwork rating tool proposed by Wright et al.[19]we developed a 10-item interprofessional communication and collaboration ques-tionnaire (ICCQ) for assessing students’ confidence and attitude about interprofessional teamwork with a modified 4-point Likert scale[9]. Students took this questionnaire at the end of the group discussion and feedback session. We compared the results between the single profession and mixed-professions student group to determine whether interprofessional collaborative learning in clinical ethics would increase students’ confidence and attitude about interprofessional teamwork.
To cope with the established evaluation in PBL curricu-lum at KMU, we adapted and modified the scales and questionnaires from the PBL curriculum in the nursing col-lege, including self-directed learning scale (SDLS), critical thinking scale (CTS), and students performance in PBL tutorial sessions questionnaire (SPIPTSQ) [24,25]. The original questionnaires were streamlined into eight ques-tions with a modified 4-point Likert scale for three learning dimensions of PBL, including “self-directed learning (SDLS)”, “critical thinking (CTS),” and “general perfor-mance (SPIPTSQ).” The result of evaluation on these three dimensions from different student groups were compared to determine the effectiveness of our curriculum on stu-dent’sconfidence and attitude about interprofessional collaborative teamwork.
The written texts on multiperspective problem identifi-cation tool from every student were collected after each tutorial session in order to analyze students’ awareness of problems from different professional perspectives. The students were considered to be capable of taking per-spectives if they could sort and define profession-specific problems after the initial steps of identifying general ethical conflicts and problems in the scenario. Students also completed the six-item satisfaction questionnaire for evaluation of the pilot curriculum. Each item of the satis-faction questionnaire was answered on a 5-point scale, from “strongly dissatisfied” (scoreZ 1) to “strongly satis-fied” (scoreZ 5). During the group discussion and feedback session, tutors and representatives of each student group were required to provide verbal and written feedbacks about their teaching and learning experiences.
Table 1 Demographic distribution of students (n Z 36) and tutors (nZ 6) by group.
Group Students Tutors
Male Female Institution Gender
n n
Nursing group
Group 1 2 4 Nursing Female Group 2 2 4 Nursing Female Mixed group
Group 1 3a 3b Medical Male
Group 2 3a 3b Nursing Female Medical group
Group 1 4 2 Medical Male
Group 2 3 3 Medical Male
aMedical students. b Nursing students.
Statistical analysis
SPSS version 14.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. Internal consistency (reliability) was assessed for students’ self-evaluation of the learning questionnaire by Cronbacha. The criterion-related validity of this questionnaire was evaluated through the associa-tions between the four-dimension score (SDLS, CTS, SPIPTSQ, and ICCQ) with the student group by one-way analysis of variance test (ANOVA) test and Tukey-Kramer honestly significant difference (HSD) comparison. The per-centage of satisfaction of the pilot curriculum was deter-mined by the percentage of students who responded with a score of 4 or 5 on each item in the scale.
Results
Thirty-six students and six tutors participated in this educational study. The demographic distribution of students and tutors in each group is shown inTable 1. However, two students in the medical student group did not attend the feedback session, and therefore, only 34 students completed the questionnaires and provided feedback.Table 2 shows each item of students’ self-evaluation of learning naire ratings. For the internal consistency of the question-naire, the values of Cronbacha for four dimensions were more than 0.70. In particular, the value of Cronbacha for the “interprofessional communication and collaboration (ICCQ)” dimension was 0.93 higher than other dimensions (not shown in table). The results of the criterion-related validity of the questionnaire are shown inTable 3. There were only signifi-cant differences among the different groups in students’ self-evaluation of their ability and attitude toward “inter-professional communication and collaboration (ICCQ)” (pZ 0.0184). Furthermore, the mean score of the mixed group (37.58 3.26) was significantly higher than the mean score of the medical group (32.10 4.98). However, there was no significant difference between the three student groups in dimensions including “self-directed learning (SDLS)”, “critical thinking (CTS),” and “general performance (SPIPTSQ).” By analyzing the written responses on the mul-tiperspective problem list from the different groups of stu-dents, we also found that both the nursing group and mixed group were able to recognize problems related to both the nurses and the doctors in the clinical scenario but that stu-dents in the medical group were concerned only about problems related to the doctors.
During the feedback session, verbal feedback from stu-dents was recorded, and some remarks common to all groups summarized as follows:
(1) “There are different perspectives among people involved in a clinical ethical dilemma. We should learn to recognize and respect other people’s perspectives.” (2) “Even when working together for the same patients, different professions may see problems differently and may hold values or perspectives that are unique to their own profession.”
(3) “We may have more than one single solution that would be good for a specific clinical ethic situation.”
(4) “The knowledge of law and ethical principles is critical to the decision-making for ethical dilemmas.”
(5) “A clear algorithm for ethical reasoning is important and tutors would better provide it during the tutorial sessions.”
(6) “It was challenging but enjoyable to work with students from the other professions to solve the clinical ethics problems.”
(7) “Students from the other professions are very helpful in getting ourselves a better understanding of the whole picture of clinical situations.”
In terms of students’ course satisfaction, the general satisfaction rating was around 79.41%. The average satis-faction rating of the performance of the lecturer and tutors was 82.35%. Most students (82.35%) considered the course effective in improving their understanding of clinical ethics (not shown in table).
Discussion
Our pilot curricular study aimed to determine the impact of our interprofessional PBL curricular model on students’ attitude and confidence of interprofessional collaboration. In this pilot curriculum, we found the practicality and evi-dence supporting the effectiveness of our model.
There has long been a debate of whether medical ethics and nursing ethics are considerably different from each other [3,4,16,17,26]. The education of ethics for nursing and medical students are usually delivered in a profession-specific way, and our novel curricular model of clinical ethics has successfully created an interprofessional learning opportunity for both nursing and medical students. In modern multiprofessional healthcare systems, clinical ethics problems may involve issues far beyond patient-physician and patient-nurse relationships. More and more educational initiatives have recognized interprofessional education as an important strategy for teaching clinical ethics [13,21]. However, a review of recent literature in interprofessional curriculum of clinical ethics revealed a limited number of curriculum models[8,12,18]. Our model incorporated PBL and narrative scenario stories to create opportunities of interprofessional interaction and provide rich situational information that vignettes in traditional PBL scenarios could not offer.
The post-course survey on student’s ability by self-evaluation questionnaire revealed that most students rated themselves well in all four dimensions including critical thinking, self-directed learning, general perfor-mance, as well as interprofessional communication and collaboration. However, we observed only significant dif-ferences among different groups in students’ self-evaluation of their ability and attitude toward “interpro-fessional communication and collaboration (ICCQ).” The post-course survey actually represented student’s evalua-tion on their learning experience. Such results indicated from student’s perspectives that our model did have a positive impact on their attitude and confidence toward interprofessional collaboration in solving problems of clin-ical ethics. In our curricular model, undergraduate medclin-ical and nursing students may experience frustrations when
Table 2 Students’ self-evaluation of performance questionnaire ratings.
Items Strongly disagree
(scoreZ 1) Disagree (scoreZ 2) Agree (scoreZ 3) Strongly agree (scoreZ 4) Self-directed learning (SDLS)
Acknowledges own strengths and weaknesses in the learning process
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 20 (58.82) 13 (38.24) Participates actively in defining own learning objectives 0 (0.00) 2 (5.88) 23 (67.65) 9 (26.47) Utilizes appropriate resources to meet own learning needs 0 (0.00) 5 (14.71) 17 (50.00) 12 (35.29) Demonstrates effective action to meet own learning need 0 (0.00) 4 (11.76) 18 (52.94) 12 (35.29) Takes responsibility for actions and their consequences to
self and group
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 15 (44.12) 18 (52.94) Evaluations relevant learning outcomes 0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 20 (58.82) 13 (38.24) Seeks constructive feedback 0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 23 (67.65) 10 (29.41) Responds appropriately to constructive feedback 0 (0.00) 2 (5.88) 23 (67.65) 9 (26.47) Critical thinking (CTS)
Analyzes the problem in a systematic, organized fashion 1 (2.94) 1 (2.94) 23 (67.65) 9 (26.47) Demonstrates an understanding of underlying concepts 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 24 (70.59) 10 (29.41) Interprets, analyzed and applies relevant theories,
concepts and facts
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 23 (67.65) 10 (29.41) Makes links with prior relevant readings, experience or
knowledge
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 19 (55.88) 14 (41.18) Clarifies the issues in the problem 0 (0.00) 3 (8.82) 14 (41.18) 17 (50.00) Asks questions to clarify points, enhance understanding 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 19 (55.88) 15 (44.12) Checks accuracy and validity of information 0 (0.00) 3 (8.82) 23 (67.65) 8 (23.53) Justifies reasons or actions 0 (0.00) 2 (5.88) 22 (64.71) 10 (29.41) Generates and considers alternative perspectives 0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 13 (38.24) 20 (58.82) General performance (SPIPTSQ)
Uses different resources to obtain needed information 0 (0.00) 2 (5.88) 20 (58.82) 12 (35.29) Presents well-organized information relevant to the case 0 (0.00) 4 (11.76) 20 (58.82) 10 (29.41) Is persistent in the study of the case 1 (2.94) 1 (2.94) 13 (38.24) 19 (55.88) Is motivated to know more 1 (2.94) 0 (0.00) 17 (50.00) 16 (47.06) Implements activities to achieve the learning objectives 1 (2.94) 2 (5.88) 18 (52.94) 13 (38.24) Gives feedback (reflections, ideas and suggestions) 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 16 (47.06) 18 (52.94) Helps her/his peers to clarify ideas 0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 19 (55.88) 15 (44.12) Interprofessional communication and collaboration (ICCQ)
Understand the role of the other professions in clinical situation
0 (0.00) 2 (5.88) 13 (38.24) 19 (55.88) Recognize and respect roles and contribution of other
professions
0 (0.00) 0 (0.00) 14 (41.18) 20 (58.82) Recognize and respect competence of others 0 (0.00) 2 (5.88) 9 (26.47) 23 (67.65) Capable of working as a team with people from other
professions
1 (2.94) 0 (0.00) 15 (44.12) 18 (52.94) Capable of communication, coordination, and conflict
resolution
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 16 (47.06) 17 (50.00) Recognize and respect leadership in collaborative
practice
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 20 (58.82) 13 (38.24) Capable of facilitating collaborative practice 1 (2.94) 1 (2.94) 21 (61.76) 11 (32.35) Confident in own ability as well as others’ 1 (2.94) 1 (2.9) 10 (29.41) 22 (64.71) Capable of patient-centered collaborative practice 0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 12 (35.29) 21 (61.76) Willing to work as a team and share the same goal with
people from other professions
0 (0.00) 1 (2.94) 11 (32.35) 22 (64.71)
Data are presented as n (%).
CTSZ critical thinking scale; ICCQ Z interprofessional communication and collaboration questionnaire; SPIPTSQ Z students’ perfor-mance in PBL tutorial sessions questionnaire.
they encounter conflicts of profession-specific ethical ob-ligations and values. Therefore, it is very important that we have paid special attention to the design of PBL tutorial sessions and used the multiperspective narrative stories to promote equal and friendly discussion.
The impacts of interprofessional curriculum on student’s attitude and confidence toward future interprofessional collaboration have always been a major concern during the development of a clinical ethics curriculum. In actual daily patient care practice, conflicts between different health-care professions occur, and the interactions and relation-ships may be very intense. Students in such a prelicensure education stage may not yet have developed a professional self-identity owing to the lack of professional qualification and clinical experience. In this pilot curriculum, conflicts of profession-specific values and ethical obligations did occur during discussions between nursing students and medical students while they tried to understand and solve the prob-lems identified by the other profession. Despite the conflicts, students in the mixed groups still reported in the feedback session that they enjoyed the discussions and problem-solving process with students from the other profession. Perhaps the interactions of students in the interprofessional collaborative learning are not as intense because of the lack of strong professional self-identity. The equal and friendly interactions may actually contribute to students’ willingness for future interprofessional collaboration.
By reviewing each student’s written text about problem identifications, we also found that nursing students were more capable of taking perspectives than medical students. In this pilot curriculum, medical students defined only profession-specific problems, whereas nursing students were able to define problems from the perspectives of both professions. Such findings indicated that the current edu-cation for medical students may be insufficient for their future collaborative patient care practice. Medical educa-tion has mostly focused on diseases and issues regarding patient-physician relationships. Little attention is paid to issues about interprofessional interaction that would occur in everyday clinical practice. Students in a single profes-sional learning environment may not be able to learn the skills and attitudes that are required for their collaborative clinical practice. We should provide an interprofessional learning environment and opportunities to foster student’s ability of interprofessional teamwork.
There are some limitations in this educational study. First, this is a pilot curriculum with a limited number of medical and nursing students. The educational effects could be different if such a curriculum was practiced as a formal curriculum of more students and more professions. Second, the “Pygmalion effect” may have occurred in this pilot curriculum, and students’ performance was actually affected by the hidden instruction from the title of the curriculum but not the curriculum itself. Another problem was the assessment of students’ learning achievement in clinical ethics. Although the effectiveness of interprofes-sional PBL in students’ attitude and confidence to partici-pate in interprofessional collaborative practice was disclosed by the self-evaluation questionnaire, the educa-tional outcome in learning clinical ethics remained unde-termined. A longer course of such a curricular model may be required prior to determining its effects on students’ knowledge and skill of clinical ethics.
In conclusion, interprofessional PBL curriculum would be a good educational strategy for teaching clinical ethics, but it could also result in negative effects on students’ attitude to-wards future interprofessional collaboration. This pilot inter-professional PBL curriculum for clinical ethics showed that our curricular model was effective in improving students’ attitude and confidence to participate in future interprofessional collaborative practice. We hope that a full-length course of this format would be put into practice in the future and more research would be carried out to enrich our understanding of interprofessional education for clinical ethics.
References
[1] Hall P, Weaver L. Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: a long and winding road. Med Educ 2001;35:867e75.
[2] Clark PG, Spence DL, Sheehan JL. A service/learning model for interdisciplinary teamwork in health and aging. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 1986;6:3e16.
[3] Pumar Mendez MJ, Armayor NC, Diaz Navarlaz MT, Wakefield A. The potential advantages and disadvantages of introducing interprofessional education into the healthcare curricula in Spain. Nurse Educ Today 2008;28:327e36. [4] Yan J, Gilbert JH, Hoffman SJ. World Health Organization
Study Group on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. J Interprof Care 2007;21:588e9.
Table 3 Students’ self-evaluation of learning by student group. Dimensions Nursing group
(nZ 12)
Mixed group (nZ 12)
Medicine group (nZ 10)
pa Significant pairs from
Tukey-Kramer HSD Self-directed learning 26.08 (2.43) 27.50 (2.91) 25.20 (3.08) 0.1689 Critical thinking 30.25 (2.26) 30.67 (3.55) 28.60 (4.09) 0.3326 General performance 27.25 (3.17) 27.83 (3.51) 25.90 (3.48) 0.3579 Interprofessional communication and collaboration 34.83 (4.47) 37.58 (3.26) 32.10 (4.98) 0.0184* Mixed> Medicine
Data are presented as mean (SD). HSDZ honestly significant difference. *p< 0.05 (highlighted in bold).
[5] Hays R. Interprofessional education in the community: where to begin. Clin Teach 2007;4:141e5.
[6] Caipe. Interprofessional education-a definition. CAIPE Bulletin 1997;13:19.
[7] Thistlethwaite J, Nisbet G. Interprofessional education: what’s the point and where we’re at.. Clin Teach 2007;4: 67e72.
[8] Siklos P, Kennedy R. Doctors, nurses, and terminal care. Medical students in Cambridge do two nursing shifts. BMJ 1997;314:306.
[9] Baker PG. Framework for action on interprofessional educa-tion and collaborative practice. Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2010.
[10] Jonsen AR, Siegler M, Winslade WJ, Siegler M, Winslade WJ. Clinical ethics: a practical approach to ethical decisions in clinical medicine. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2006.
[11] Nagpal K, Vats A, Ahmed K, Smith AB, Sevdalis N, Jonannsson H, et al. A systematic quantitative assessment of risks associated with poor communication in surgical care. Arch Surg 2010;145:582.
[12] D’Eon M. A blueprint for interprofessional learning. Med Teach 2004;26:604e9.
[13] Oandasan I, Reeves S. Key elements for interprofessional education. Part 1: the learner, the educator and the learning context. J Interprof Care 2005;(19 Suppl 1):21e38.
[14] Prince KJ, van Eijs PW, Boshuizen HP, van der Vleuten CP, Scherpbier AJ. General competencies of problem-based learning (PBL) and non-PBL graduates. Med Educ 2005;39: 394e401.
[15] Craddock D, O’Halloran C, Borthwick A, McPherson K. Interprofessional education in health and social care: fashion or informed practice? Learn Health Soc Care 2006;5: 220e42.
[16] Lewis AD, Menezes DA, McDermott HE, Hibbert LJ, Brennan SL, Ross EE, et al. A comparison of course-related stressors in undergraduate problem-based learning (PBL)
versus non-PBL medical programmes. BMC Med Educ 2009; 9:60.
[17] Coster S, Norman I, Murrells T, Kitchen S, Meerabeau E, Sooboodoo E, et al. Interprofessional attitudes amongst un-dergraduate students in the health professions: a longitudinal questionnaire survey. Int J Nurs Stud 2008;45:1667e81. [18] Curran VR, Sharpe D, Forristall J. Attitudes of health sciences
faculty members towards interprofessional teamwork and education. Med Educ 2007;41:892e6.
[19] Wright MC, Phillips-Bute BG, Petrusa ER, Griffin KL, Hobbs GW, Taekman JM. Assessing teamwork in medical education and practice: relating behavioural teamwork ratings and clinical performance. Med Teach 2009;31:30e8.
[20] Lindqvist S, Duncan A, Shepstone L, Watts F, Pearce S. Development of the ‘Attitudes to Health Professionals Ques-tionnaire’ (AHPQ): a measure to assess interprofessional at-titudes. J Interprof Care 2005;19:269e79.
[21] Hammick M, Freeth D, Koppel I, Reeves S, Barr H. A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9. Med Teach 2007;29:735e51.
[22] Reeves S. Community-based interprofessional education for medical, nursing and dental students. Health Soc Care Community 2000;8:269e76.
[23] Tunstall-Pedoe S, Rink E, Hilton S. Student attitudes to un-dergraduate interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2003;17:161e72.
[24] Tseng HC, Jian SY, Hsu YY, Ko HG, Chin CC, Chou FH. Effec-tiveness of applying problem-based learning to a nursing course on “symposiums regarding clinical cases”. J Health Sci 2006;8:121e31.
[25] Valle R, Petra L, Martinez-Gonzaez A, Rojas-Ramirez JA, Morales-Lopez S, Pina-Garza B. Assessment of student per-formance in problem-based learning tutorial sessions. Med Educ 1999;33:818e22.
[26] Breier-Mackie S. Medical ethics and nursing ethics: is there really any difference? Gastroenterol Nurs 2006;29:182e3.
