1. LEARN. CARE. COMMUNITY. PNWU.edu Figure 1: Concept Map for IPE Fidelity 1.Determine the rubric score that represents high, medium, and low fidelity. 2.Identify external instruments against which to compare data in order to perform validity analysis. Research Question Methods References Future Directions Results and Conclusion Measuring the Fidelity of Interprofessional Practice Education Activities Significant resources are being utilized in health science education to better prepare health professionals to work collaboratively in interprofessional teams. This preparation is accomplished through the use of interprofessional practice education (IPE) at all levels of training. The efficacy of IPE is, in part, a function of the degree to which learning activities represent real life clinical situations, which is referred to as fidelity -- where high fidelity activities are those that most closely mimic the real world in terms of physical resemblance and functional tasks. However, the Institute of Medicine recently critiqued IPE practice and research as lacking consistent models and measures, including those related to fidelity: “a widely accepted model for describing IPE and its associated learning activities and outcomes is another major problem... Without documentation of the application and fidelity of the intervention and of important process variables and proximal outcomes, studies cannot determine clearly that teamwork training actually results in improved teamwork prior to the assessment of health system outcomes” 1(p. 45-46) The WHO definition of IPE 2 calls for participants from two or more different professions to learn about, with, and from one another, which implies collaborative decision making in which participants learn about one another’s professions. A literature review was conducted to identify existing tools for measuring fidelity of IPE activities as well as any associated research. Databases searched included PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Premier, American Doctoral Dissertations, Health Source, MasterFILE Premier, and SocINDEX. The objective was to synthesize existing resources into a first-draft instrument (only one tool was identified – see Results section). A concept map (Figure 1) was created. The instrument (Figure 2) was developed and reviewed for content validity through face analysis by three health professional IPE educators. The revised tool was presented to an interprofessional practice collaborative steering committee and then put into pilot usage. During the pilot phase, educators completed the worksheet prior to delivery of an IPE activity and subsequent to delivery. The research team reviewed all completed fidelity worksheets for consistency, and observed users’ experiences with it. The tool was modified based on the users’ experiences. One existing tool for documenting fidelity of IPE activities was identified in the literature. 3 There were many other types of IPE measurement tools, such as a tool for assessing interprofessional collaborator competencies. 4 The one existing fidelity tool was reviewed by the user panel and deemed to be inadequate in terms of assessing all of the domains of interest. Due to the dearth of available literature, a set of domains was developed and is proposed in the present rubric. Ten domains for evaluating fidelity were generated: (1) learning content and context; (2) participating professions; (3) team interaction; (4) learning from other professions; (5) learning about other professions’ education/licensing; (6) learning about other professions scope of practice; (7) educator assessment of learner competency attainment; (8) participant self- assessment; (9) team assessment; (10) patient and/or care giver feedback. Three levels of fidelity were selected, for ease of use. Low Fidelity (2.5 points) Medium Fidelity (5 points) High Fidelity (10 points) It is possible for a domain to receive zero points if the characteristic is not present in the design of an activity. The rubric was designed to use a scale of 100 points possible. Each domain is equally weighted. It is unclear if equal weighting of the domains is the best design of the tool. No literature was available to address this issue. Further research is needed utilizing data collected from a large number of users. User feedback on the tool has been positive. 1.Committee on Measuring the Impact of Interprofessional Education on Collaborative Practice and Patient Outcomes; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine. Measuring the impact of interprofessional education on collaborative practice and patient outcomes. 2015 Dec 15; Washington (DC): National Academies Press. 2.World Health Organization. Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice. 2010; Geneva: World Health Organization. 3.University of British Columbia: College of Health Disciplines. Interprofessional education weighting rubric. 2015 Sept 18. 4.Curran V, Casimiro L, Banfield V, Hall P, Gierman T, Lackie K, et al. Interprofessional collaborator assessment rubric. [online]. Nd. Accessed from https://www.med.mun.ca/getdoc/b78eb859-6c13-4f2f-9712-f50f1c67c863/ICAR.aspx What are the domains that comprise fidelity of IPE activities? The purpose of this project was to develop and implement a tool for measuring the fidelity of IPE activities and to determine if the tool provided meaningful information for educators. Bernadette Howlett, PhD; Erin Hepner MPH/MSN/ARNP/NP-C; Linda Dale, DHEd, PA-C Introduction April 7, 2016 Figure 2: IPE Activity Fidelity Worksheet This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under Grant No. T0BHP28560, "Primary Care Training and Enhancement," in the amount of $1,749,805. Contact Information Bernadette Howlett, PhD Chief Research Officer, PNWU bhowlett@pnwu.edu Erin Hepner, MPH/MSN/ARNP/NP-C Assistant Professor, Family Medicine, PNWU ehepner@pnwu.edu Linda Dale, DHEd, PA-C Director, PA Program, Heritage University Dale_L@heritage.edu