1. Evaluations Using the Interprofessional Collaboration Assessment Rubric (ICAR)
Audrey Weymiller, PhD, CNP-BC; Anna Jarrett, PhD, CNP-BC; Marilou Shreve, DNP, PNP-BC; Debbie Shirey, DNP, CNP-BC
University of Arkansas Eleanor Mann School of Nursing
Background and Review of Literature
Initial and Concurrent Domain Scores
Conclusions
Health care providers have not received formal education about working as integrated teams in inter-professional collaborative efforts.
Inter-professional collaboration utilizes the skills and experience of team members to function more effectively than each individual would working alone.
Inter-professional collaboration improves patient coordination, communication, quality, and safety.
Studies suggest that interprofessional collaboration improves patient coordination, communication, quality, and safety2,3,6-8,10.
Competency-based assessment rubric
Measures communication, collaboration, roles and responsibilities, a collaborative patient-family-centered approach to care, conflict management/resolution, and team functioning.
Formative assessment - provides learners with constructive feedback on competency areas for further development.
Summative assessment - may be used to assess learners’ achievement.
Each item evaluated on ability: 1= Minimal, 2 = Developing, 3= Competent, 4= Mastery
Internal consistency reliability for overall ICAR and each domain (α =  ).
Validity: typological analysis, Delphi, focus groups
Students score themselves lower than preceptors and faculty
Overall, scores increase as students matriculate program
Lowest individual scores: Communication
Consistently weak individual scores: Roles and Responsibility
Determine if results are stable over one 3-year cohort
Validate with focus groups
Implications for Practice
Curriculum re-mapping (ongoing)
NURS 5033 Role Development
Robust concept development in curriculum including communication, roles and responsibilities, team functioning, and conflict management/resolution across courses
Continue longitudinal study with iterative PDSA cycles
ICAR
References
American Association of Colleges of Nursing. (2006). The Essentials of Doctoral Education for Advanced Nursing Practice. Washington, DC: Author.
Baker L, Egan-Lee E, Martimianakis MA, Reeves S. Relationships of power: implications for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care. 2011;25:98–104
Curran, V.R., et al. (2010). Interprofessional collaborator assessment rubric (ICAR). Retrieved from
Institute for Healthcare Improvement. (2016). Plan-do-study-act (PDSA) worksheet. Retrieved from
Curran, V.R. et al. (2012). ICAR instrument available at:
Parker, K., & Oandasan, I. (2012). Interprofessional collaborative organization map and preparedness assessment (IP- COMPASS). Toronto: Kathryn Parker and Ivy Oandasan.
Reeves S, Lewin S, Espin S, Zwarenstein M. Interprofessional Teamwork in Health and Social Care Wiley-Blackwell.
The Conference Board of Canada. Improving Primary Health Care Through Collaboration Briefing 2— Barriers to Successful Interprofessional Teams. Canada. Conference Board of Canada
University of Arkansas Institutional Review Board (IRB) Project Number –
Wagter JM, van de Bunt G, Honing M, Eckenhausen M, Scherpbier A. Informal interprofessional learning: visualizing the clinical workplace. J Interprof Care. 2012;26:173–82.
Purpose
Initial Results – Fall 2015
Cumulative Results – Fall 2016
Overall mean scores six domains
Preceptors
Students
Faculty
Students’ MEAN scores lower in six (6) domains on nine (9) items
(Communication) Communicates opinion or pertinent views on patients care (3.54 – lowest individual score).
(Roles) Explains own scope of practice, code of ethics, standards and/or clinical guidelines in relation to collaborative patient-centered relationship (3.65).
(Roles) Shares evidence-based or best practice knowledge with others (3.67).
(Roles) Shares/alternates leadership with others when appropriate (3.55).
(Team) Demonstrates recognition of strategies to improve team functioning (3.67).
(Team) Demonstrates recognition of themselves as part of a team (3.67).
(Team) Contributes to interprofessional team discussions (3.67).
(Patient Centered) Seeks input from patient/client and family (3.64).
(Patient Centered) Shares options/health information with patients/clients/families (3.71).
Lowest score: Team Functioning (3.64)
To obtain baseline data, and then trend responses by preceptors, students, and faculty using the Interprofessional Collaboration Assessment Rubric (ICAR)
Overall mean scores six (6) domains
Preceptors
Students
Faculty
Students’ MEAN scores lower in five (5) domains on nine (9) items
(Communication) Communicates opinion or pertinent views on patients care (3.32 – lowest individual score).
(Collaboration) Shares information with provider useful for delivery of care (3.50).
(Roles) Clearly describes one's role and responsibilities team/patient/family (3.46).
(Roles) Promotes and includes the role and responsibilities of all necessary health care providers to optimize collaborative patient/client care (3.46).
(Roles) Explains own scope of practice, code of ethics, standards and/or clinical guidelines in relation to collaborative patient-centered relationship (3.37).
(Roles) Shares evidence-based or best practice with others (3.37).
(Patient Centered) Shares options/health information with patients/clients/families (3.41).
(Patient Centered) Seeks input from patient/client and family (3.41).
(Conflict Management) Seeks the perspectives and opinions of others (3.73).
Lowest score: Roles and Responsibility (3.54)
Methods
This is a rapid cycle quality improvement using Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) to collect baseline data prior to implementing changes. ICAR was administered electronically at the end of clinical rotations fall 2015, spring/summer/fall It will continue through May 2018.
This project is/was supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number D09HP28679 Mutually Beneficial Partnerships for Advanced Nursing Education in Arkansas, $1,081, Zero percentage (0%) financed with nongovernmental sources). This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.”