Abstract
I read the editorial titled ‘Importance of assessment to drive interprofessional learning’ 1 with much interest. The author addressed challenges to interprofessional collaboration (IPC), education (IPE) and assessment (IPA) and accurately identifies and reminds us of factors that may be barriers to effective IPC and IPE. I do not dispute the potential positive impact of IPAs on professional development and patient outcomes that were highlighted. However, creating and implementing IPE programmes is resource-intensive 2 , especially when constructing corresponding IPA instruments and standards. The burden is aggravated by having to: (1) assume responsibility for safeguarding the validity, reliability and relevance of the assessments, (2) be accountable to decisions related to its construct and outcomes, and (3) potentially comply with institutional or regulatory requirements for quality-assurance. The existence of highly-specialised interprofessional teams in healthcare teams, each with increasingly complex and frequently changing roles and responsibilities, increases the logistical complexity of having to support such diverse IPE inter-actions. Further, an IPE programme with an extrinsically-motivated IPA strategy focusing on skills or task com-petencies risks being labelled performance-driven and may reduce IPC efforts to merely ‘functional’ or ‘operational’. 3 While IPAs can help teams progress from being ‘functional’ to ‘effective’, I propose a more holistic, multi-faceted approach. This includes process-driven IPE with open, productive critical reflection, and a robust, constructive team-based feedback mechanism as foundations for collaborative IPE practices. This requires mutual agreement of stakeholders to commit, engage and collaborate in all IPE dimensions of learning, teaching and assessment. 3 Teams should also be encouraged and equipped with skills to perform their own learning needs assessment and develop shared outcomes. 2 Such a journey allows teams to articulate outcomes that are specific to their collective or individual roles. It helps them explore and appreciate the values and contributions of other members. Teams may also find creative ways to achieve their intended IPE outcomes and identify teaching methods that best suit their different learning styles. A thoughtfully structured and guided IPE programme can intrinsically motivate individuals and teams to remain committed to their learning goals, foster mutual understanding and develop trusting and respectful relationships. 4 Further, such a framework makes it possible for IPE programmes to be informal, less academic and more workplace-centred, therefore minimising perceived hierarchical barriers and facilitating a more collegial, authentic and context-relevant learning experience. 2 Cohesive interprofessional teams may also devise evaluation methods to improve their efficacy through the iterative process of assessing, reflecting and feedback.
If we engage stakeholders such that they fully co-own the process, then it can go a long way more towards cultivating meaningful IPC experiences, deeper reflections and richer partnerships 5 that will benefit patients and prevent further stresses to our limited healthcare resources. In such an IPE programme, stakeholders have opportunities at every turn to critically examine, appreciate and understand the multi-dimensional nature of IPE interactions. They can make consensual evidence-informed decisions on how best to approach IPC, define outcomes, evaluate progress beyond performance-related measures, and agree on strategies for collective reflection and feedback.