Description

Discussion: Beyond Teamwork: Interprofessional Education (IPE) and Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC)

Never use plagiarized sources. Get Your Original Essay on
The differences between Interprofessional Education (IPE) and Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC)
Hire Professionals Just from $11/Page
Order Now Click here

Effective collaboration between healthcare professionals is necessary to patient care. It is also a necessary aspect of healthcare education, as an effective program seeks to engage learners with various aspects of their roles and the stakeholders that support those roles.

Photo Credit: WavebreakmediaMicro – stock.adob

Students can benefit significantly from collaborating or otherwise engaging with those from other roles or specialties. Thus, nurse educators seek to create educational experiences that break down silos and provide opportunities to learn about, from, and with those in other roles to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes. Healthcare is a highly collaborative environment, and practitioners are served immensely when they have the opportunity to prepare for this.

In this Discussion, you consider the differences between Interprofessional Education (IPE) and Interprofessional Collaboration (IPC). You examine the impact of collaboration between disciplines and relate this impact to your practicum.

By Day 3

Post an explanation of the differences between interprofessional collaboration and interprofessional education. How do the different disciplines work together in each type of collaboration? How do they learn together? How does this relate to your learning objective for your practicum experience?

Use the Learning Resources and/or the best available evidence from current literature to support your explanation.

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses.

By Day 6
Learning Resources

Required Readings (click to expand/reduce)

Allen, P., Jones, M. M., & Boswell, C. (2016). Program evaluation. In S. Cannon & C. Boswell (Eds.), Evidence-based teaching in nursing: A foundation for educators (2nd ed., pp. 247–274). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Barton, A. J., & Brandt, B. (2018). Interprofessional education in the age of risk and innovation. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(11), 635–637.

Bianchi, M., & Bressan, V. (2019). Effectiveness of interprofessional education and new prospects. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 75(1), 14–16.

Bilinski, H., & Peternelj-Taylor, C. (2019). A pathway for assessing the state of commitment to interprofessional education. Nurse Educator, 44(4), 175–177.

Dickerson, P. S. (2019). The evolution of interprofessional continuing education. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 50(8), 339–340.

Frith, K. H. (2020). Design thinking: An approach to innovative interprofessional education. Nursing Education Perspectives, 41(1), 69.

Halstead, J. A., & Frank, B. (2018). Pathways to a nursing education career: Transitioning from practice to academia (2nd ed.) Springer Publishing Company.

Chapter 3, “Determining Institutional Fit: Finding the Perfect Faculty Position”

Credit Line: Pathways to a Nursing Education Career: Transitioning From Practice to Academia, 2nd Edition by Halstead, J. A., & Frank, B. Copyright 2018 by Springer Publishing Company. Reprinted by permission of Springer Publishing Company via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Longhurst, R. (2020). Embedding interprofessional education among healthcare groups to deliver best patient care. Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, 26(9), 35.

Miltner, R. S., Jukkala, A., Dawson, M. A., & Patrician, P. A. (2015). Professional development needs of nurse managers. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 46(6), 252–258.

Peterson, B. L., Pittenger, A. L., Kaas, M. J., & Lounsbery, J. L. (2019). Partnering for a sustainable interprofessional psychiatric mental health nurse practitioner education curriculum. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(12), 723–727.

Phillips, J. M., Phillips, C. R., Kauffman, K. R., Gainey, M., & Schnur, P. L. (2019). Academic-practice partnerships: A win-win. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 50(6), 282–288.

Sebastian, J. G., Breslin, E. T., Trautman, D. E., Cary, A. H., Rosseter, R. J., & Vlahov, D. (2018). Leadership by collaboration: Nursing’s bold new vision for academic-practice partnerships. Journal of Professional Nursing, 34(2), 110–116.

Stewart, L. S., Stringer, T. H., VanRegenmorter, J., Miller, S., Alexander, E. H., & Phillippi, J. C. (2019). Interprofessional simulation for nursing and divinity students: Learning beyond checklists. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 35, 10–16.

Vogelsang, L., & Bergen, T. (2018). Enhancing interprofessional competencies using reflective writing in clinical nursing education. Journal of Nursing Education, 57(12), 768.

von der Lancken, S., & Gunn, E. (2019). Improving role identity by shadowing interprofessional team members in a clinical setting: An innovative clinical education course. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 33(5), 464–471.

Credit Line: Improving role identity by shadowing interprofessional team members in a clinical setting: An innovative clinical education course by von der Lancken, S., & Gunn, E., in Journal of Interprofessional Care, Vol. 33/ Issue 5. Copyright 2019 by Taylor & Francis Ltd. Reprinted by permission of Taylor & Francis Ltd. via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Required Media (click to expand/reduce)

Walden University (Producer). (2020). Building and managing professional relationships [Video]. Walden University Blackboard.

 

Building and Managing Professional Relationships

Dr. Terry Valiga shares best practices for building and managing professional relationships. Strategies for handling workplace conflict are also discussed. (9 m).

 

Accessible player
–Downloads–
Download Video w/CC
Download Audio
Download Transcript

Optional Resources (click to expand/reduce)

Amirehsani, K. A., Kennedy-Malone, L., & Alam, M. T. (2019). Supporting preceptors and strengthening academic-practice partnerships: Preceptors’ perceptions. Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 15(8), e151–e156.

Banks, S., Stanley, M. J., Brown, S., & Matthew, W. (2019). Simulation-based interprofessional education: A nursing and social work collaboration. Journal of Nursing Education, 58(2), 110–113.

Swan, B. A., & Conway-Phillips, R. (2019). Optimizing strategies for care coordination and transition management: Recommendations for nursing education. Nursing Economic$, 37(2), 77–85.

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days by sharing a personal or professional experience or observation related to the relationship between IPE and IPC that either supports your colleagues’ post or provides an alternative viewpoint.

223521
an hour ago
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Name: NURS_6351_Week_6_Discussion_Rubric

Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
Main Posting
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.

Supported by at least three credible sources.

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to some of the discussion question(s).

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Post is cited with two credible sources.

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Contains some APA formatting errors.

0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.

Contains only one or no credible sources.

Not written clearly or concisely.

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Main Post: Timeliness
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)
Posts main post by Day 3.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not post main post by Day 3.

First Response
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

15 (15%) – 16 (16%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

13 (13%) – 14 (14%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 12 (12%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Second Response
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

12 (12%) – 13 (13%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

0 (0%) – 11 (11%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.

Responses to faculty questions are missing.

No credible sources are cited.

Participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
N/A

0 (0%) – 0 (0%)
Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on three different days.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_6351_Week_6_Discussion_Rubric

d
Unlimited Free Revisions
Money Back Guarantee

Open chat
Lets chat on via WhatsApp
Hello, Welcome to our WhatsApp support. Reply to this message to start a chat.