University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center,
|
The purpose of this subgrant was to evaluate the impact of the 2008 APTR Interprofessional Institute participation and IPE project, including documentation of 1) quantifiable project outcomes, 2) challenges and lessons learned, and 3) the sequential influence of this project and other small scale initiatives on achieving subsequent progress in IPE and 4) recommendations for future IPE development.
impact
Established 3-credit interprofessional study-abroad course serving 14 students/year. |
Designated a champion devoted to IPE development. |
Dedicated college funds sufficient to incentivize Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) projects.
APTR Project proposal for 2007/2008 IPE Institute Project
In 2008, APTR funded the project An Interdisciplinary Research Team Model for Service-Learning in Geriatrics aimed at developing interprofessional research team capacity to test home-based assessment and interventions and their interface with distance family caregivers and older adults.
Objectives included: |
No, but alternative IPE programs were developed soon after Sustained the Post-Institute IPE Activity or Project After the Initial Year of Implementation: |
- Examining principles for establishing service learning
- Introducing a theoretical and experiential framework for interprofessional learning to the full team (faculty, students, and key stakeholders from the university and community)
- Articulating discipline based perspectives to identify commonalities and differences for consideration in team process
- Developing a structure for service learning via interprofessional team training
Final products were to be an interdisciplinary team experienced in collaborative work, a framework to build interprofessional research capacity to facilitate support for crafting definitive studies, and the structure for service learning.
CURRENT IPE ACTIVITY/PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The College set as a strategic priority IP education and research in 2010. Under the rubric of research, and with the Dean’s support, we enhanced PhD education to include an interdisciplinary mentorship model which served to educate faculty/students and set a favorable culture for next steps. Concurrently the Health Sciences Center worked on a pilot IPE clinical education initiative with about 80 students across several health disciplines. The College established donor funding culminating in a 2014 pilot research grant program with specific criteria of at least three health-related disciplines as key personnel. We included a faculty coach to guide interdisciplinary team development and a requirement for the team to meet with the faculty coach at intervals. Emphasis was to be on role definition, clarification of research roles, and greater understanding of interdisciplinary conduct of research. The interdisciplinary research pilot awards are housed in the College of Nursing. The awards are announced across the Health Sciences Center via the Office of Research Administration and email notifications are sent specifically to gerontology-focused researchers.
Structural Dimensions:
The theoretical framework for interdisciplinary research (IDR) is well established in the literature and did guide our planning – notably the structural aspects (system in place to support IDR, the need to build team pre- and during the IDR process, sustain coaching as a parallel function along with the conduct of the research). Also, IDR team competencies are known in the literature; these were used to craft the pilot awards (from Reynolds Foundation funding), and refined for subsequent rounds of pilot awards: ongoing team building once the study commenced, weekly or twice monthly meetings with PI and project coordinator and the assigned ‘coach’ for the team, maintaining meeting minutes, and division of labor charts.
Challenges: The literature documents and we experienced the ‘fall-off’ of engagement in the ID team building during the conduct of the research. Principal Investigator (PI) faculty were not highly skilled in managing the team, and focus moved to completing the work over sustaining team dynamics. Subsequent pilot awards adjusted by explicitly included criteria in this area and plans to train the PI prior to commencing the study.
The theoretical framework for interdisciplinary research (IDR) is well established in the literature and did guide our planning – notably the structural aspects (system in place to support IDR, the need to build team pre- and during the IDR process, sustain coaching as a parallel function along with the conduct of the research). Also, IDR team competencies are known in the literature; these were used to craft the pilot awards (from Reynolds Foundation funding), and refined for subsequent rounds of pilot awards: ongoing team building once the study commenced, weekly or twice monthly meetings with PI and project coordinator and the assigned ‘coach’ for the team, maintaining meeting minutes, and division of labor charts.
Challenges: The literature documents and we experienced the ‘fall-off’ of engagement in the ID team building during the conduct of the research. Principal Investigator (PI) faculty were not highly skilled in managing the team, and focus moved to completing the work over sustaining team dynamics. Subsequent pilot awards adjusted by explicitly included criteria in this area and plans to train the PI prior to commencing the study.
Human Dimensions:
Proposals were to include methods to sustain team and monthly team meetings proved helpful to keeping all on task. Subsequent proposals included criteria for PI to demonstrate how they planned to engage faculty (who ranged from early adopters of IDR to reluctant participants) in team-building during the conduct of the research. College funding supported the ‘coach,’ a senior faculty member assigned to keep the team science and collaboration among members front and center.
Challenges: Some senior investigators that were content experts (Co-Investigator) did not engage in the conduct of the research-treating faculty like post-doctoral students. PI lack of knowledge related to sharing intellectual property identified the need to have a plan for arbitrating disputes.
Proposals were to include methods to sustain team and monthly team meetings proved helpful to keeping all on task. Subsequent proposals included criteria for PI to demonstrate how they planned to engage faculty (who ranged from early adopters of IDR to reluctant participants) in team-building during the conduct of the research. College funding supported the ‘coach,’ a senior faculty member assigned to keep the team science and collaboration among members front and center.
Challenges: Some senior investigators that were content experts (Co-Investigator) did not engage in the conduct of the research-treating faculty like post-doctoral students. PI lack of knowledge related to sharing intellectual property identified the need to have a plan for arbitrating disputes.
Political Dimensions:
IPE was established as priority at both the Health Sciences Center and College subsequent to the 2008 original APTR award. Momentum built on both the clinical education as well as research enterprise, with less emphasis and funds dedicated to IDR capacity due to political emphasis on the IP clinical education. IPE was championed by the Provost, Vice Provost, and Dean; with the College providing funds to support the interdisciplinary research pilot awards (foundation-secured funds provided jumpstart for the IDR pilots with matching funds from College).
Challenges: Current infrastructure at the Health Sciences Center worked against team science and bringing together interdisciplinary researchers. Because there was in some cases no prior conceptualization of the research problem, the short turnaround for submission of proposals for the one-year pilot grants was insufficient. Grants defaulted to planning grants versus pilot intervention awards and subsequent adjustments were made to the award purpose to endorse both the planning grant and pilot research award as a means to build IDR. Finally, there was limited political/status incentive to research faculty to come together as team for IDR.
IPE was established as priority at both the Health Sciences Center and College subsequent to the 2008 original APTR award. Momentum built on both the clinical education as well as research enterprise, with less emphasis and funds dedicated to IDR capacity due to political emphasis on the IP clinical education. IPE was championed by the Provost, Vice Provost, and Dean; with the College providing funds to support the interdisciplinary research pilot awards (foundation-secured funds provided jumpstart for the IDR pilots with matching funds from College).
Challenges: Current infrastructure at the Health Sciences Center worked against team science and bringing together interdisciplinary researchers. Because there was in some cases no prior conceptualization of the research problem, the short turnaround for submission of proposals for the one-year pilot grants was insufficient. Grants defaulted to planning grants versus pilot intervention awards and subsequent adjustments were made to the award purpose to endorse both the planning grant and pilot research award as a means to build IDR. Finally, there was limited political/status incentive to research faculty to come together as team for IDR.
Symbolic Dimensions:
The all-Health Sciences Center research strategic plan has been developed 2012-2014. Emphasis on building team science is apparent in the plan yet additional incentives for individual faculty in the College to engage are yet to be determined.
The all-Health Sciences Center research strategic plan has been developed 2012-2014. Emphasis on building team science is apparent in the plan yet additional incentives for individual faculty in the College to engage are yet to be determined.
IPE OFFERINGS INCLUDE:
|
PROFESSIONS/DISCIPLINES/SCHOOLS INVOLVED:
|
ACADEMIC LEVELS TARGETED:
|
COURSE DESCRIPTION:
|
EVALUATION METHODS:
- Quantitative surveys
- Other: Interdisciplinary Research Awards - Qualitative evaluation of team and process by the faculty coach
- Other: Evidence of shared dissemination via publication, presentation, and preparation/submission larger grant proposals
- Other: Study Abroad course (not a part of the IDR pilot awards; developed separately to address IPE) - Faculty reports on students outcomes
Lessons/Results/OUTCOMES:
Lessons Learned:
Research Pilot Awards - Teams will vary widely in individual and collective knowledge and skill as interdisciplinary team members, therefore coaching must be customized to each situation and remain fluid yet hold to established standards. Pre-submission discussions with the PI researcher is important to clarify the intention of the research and team building of the research team. Require as part of the initial proposal submission the strategies for team-building and interdisciplinary focus.
Evaluation Results:
Research Pilot Awards - Teams will vary widely in individual and collective knowledge and skill as interdisciplinary team members, therefore coaching must be customized to each situation and remain fluid yet hold to established standards. Pre-submission discussions with the PI researcher is important to clarify the intention of the research and team building of the research team. Require as part of the initial proposal submission the strategies for team-building and interdisciplinary focus.
Evaluation Results:
- Project outcomes were modest in achieving original intentions of interdisciplinary research team development.
- Challenges included inadequate pre-project team building, insufficient understanding among team members of their and other's respective disciplinary scope of research, and a focus on education of clinical IP content versus the intended education in research team development using faculty/student dyads from each discipline. Lessons learned focused on the need for strategic pre-project faculty team development and targeted focus and re-focus on project aims to reduce disciplinary distractions and improve the logistics of working together.
- A timeline from 2008 project start to 2015 reflecting subsequent interdisciplinary research (IDR) projects identified factors that likely moved the College toward success: a champion dedicated to the cause; dedicated College funds sufficient to incentivize IPE projects; use of faculty coach/mentor to facilitate the ID teams; and concurrent capacity building for IPE on the health sciences center campus.
- Study Abroad Course (developed subsequent to the APTR project and to address IPE): annual expansion in the number (now at 20 students 2017)) and disciplinary diversity of students.