↓ Skip to main content

Applying interprofessional Team-Based Learning in patient safety: a pilot evaluation study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
143 Mendeley
Title
Applying interprofessional Team-Based Learning in patient safety: a pilot evaluation study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1164-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lukas Lochner, Sandra Girardi, Alessandra Pavcovich, Horand Meier, Franco Mantovan, Dietmar Ausserhofer

Abstract

Interprofessional education (IPE) interventions are not always successful in achieving learning outcomes. Team-Based Learning (TBL) would appear to be a suitable pedagogical method for IPE, as it focuses on team performance; however, little is known about interprofessional TBL as an instructional framework for patient safety. In this pilot-study, we aimed to (1) describe participants' reactions to TBL, (2) observe their achievement with respect to interprofessional education learning objectives, and (3) document their attitudinal shifts with regard to patient safety behaviours. We developed and implemented a three-day course for pre-qualifying, non-medical healthcare students to give instruction on non-technical skills related to 'learning from errors'. The course consisted of three sequential modules: 'Recognizing Errors', 'Analysing Errors', and 'Reporting Errors'. The evaluation took place within a quasi-experimental pre-test-post-test study design. Participants completed self-assessments through valid and reliable instruments such as the Mennenga's TBL Student Assessment Instrument and the University of the West of England's Interprofessional Questionnaire. The mean scores of the individual readiness assurance tests were compared with the scores of the group readiness assurance test in order to explore if students learned from each other during group discussions. Data was analysed using descriptive (i.e. mean, standard deviation), parametric (i.e. paired t-test), and non-parametric (i.e. Wilcoxon signed-rank test) methods. Thirty-nine students from five different bachelor's programs attended the course. The participants positively rated TBL as an instructional approach. All teams outperformed the mean score of their individual members during the readiness assurance process. We observed significant improvements in 'communication and teamwork' and 'interprofessional learning' but not in 'interprofessional interaction' and 'interprofessional relationships.' Findings on safety attitudes and behaviours were mixed. TBL was well received by the students. Our first findings indicate that interprofessional TBL seems to be a promising pedagogical method to achieve patient safety learning objectives. It is crucial to develop relevant clinical cases that involve all professions. Further research with larger sample sizes (e.g. including medical students) and more rigorous study designs (e.g. pre-test post-test with a control group) is needed to confirm our preliminary findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 143 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 15 10%
Student > Master 13 9%
Researcher 10 7%
Student > Bachelor 10 7%
Other 8 6%
Other 26 18%
Unknown 61 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 15%
Social Sciences 9 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 3%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 67 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,269,409
of 25,360,284 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,670
of 3,952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,728
of 336,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#40
of 83 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,360,284 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 83 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.