Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T04:07:27.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Team-based clinical simulation in radiation medicine: value to attitudes and perceptions of interprofessional collaboration

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2015

Caitlin Gillan ,
Meredith Giuliani ,
Olive Wong ,
Nicole Harnett ,
Emily Milne ,
Douglas Moseley ,
Robert Thompson ,
Pamela Catton  and
Jean-Pierre Bissonnette
Caitlin Gillan*
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Meredith Giuliani
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Olive Wong
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
Nicole Harnett
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Emily Milne
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada
Douglas Moseley
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada Bahen Chant Radiation Treatment Centre, Stronach Regional Cancer Centre, Newmarket, Canada
Robert Thompson
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Pamela Catton
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Jean-Pierre Bissonnette
Affiliation:
Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
*
Correspondence to: Caitlin Gillan, 2B Radiation Therapy, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, 610 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario Canada, M5G 2M9. E-mail: Caitlin.gillan@rmp.uhn.on.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Simulation has been effective for changing attitudes towards team-based competencies in many areas, but its role in teaching interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in radiation medicine (RM) is unknown. This study reports on feasibility and IPC outcomes of a team-based simulation event; ‘Radiation Medicine Simulation in Learning Interprofessional Collaborative Experience’ (RM SLICE).

Methods

Radiation therapy (RTT), medical physics (MP) and radiation oncology (RO) trainees in a single academic department were eligible. Scheduled closure of a modern RM clinic allowed rotation of five high-fidelity cases in three 105-minute timeslots. A pre/post-survey design evaluated learner satisfaction and interprofessional perceptions. Scales included the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), UWE Entry Level Interprofessional Questionnaire (UWEIQ), Trainee Test of Team Dynamics and Collaborative Behaviours Scale (CBS).

Results

Twenty-one trainees participated; six ROs (28·57%), six MPs (28·57%) and nine RTTs (42·86%). All cases were conducted, resolved and debriefed within the allotted time. Twenty-one complete sets (100%) of evaluations were returned. Participants reported limited interaction with other professional groups before RM SLICE. Perceptions of team functioning and value of team interaction in ‘establishing or improving the care plan’ were high for all cases, averaging 8·1/10 and 8·9/10. Average CBS scores were 70·4, 71·9 and 69·5, for the three cases, scores increasing between the first and second case for 13/21 (61·9%) participants. RIPLS and UWEIQ scores reflected positive perceptions both pre- and post-event, averaging 83·5 and 85·2 (RIPLS) and 60·6 and 55·7 (UWEIQ), respectively. For all professions for both scales, the average change in score reflected improved IP perceptions, with agreement between scales for 15/20 (75·0%) participants. Overall, perception of IPC averaged 9·14/10, as did the importance of holding such an event annually.

Conclusions

Team-based simulation is feasible in RM and appears to facilitate interprofessional competency-building in high-acuity clinical situations, reflecting positive perceptions of IPC.

Keywords

interprofessional educationcollaborationsimulation
Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Radiotherapy in Practice , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2015 , pp. 117 - 125
Check for updates
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Russell, L, Nyhof-Young, J, Abosh, B, Robinson, S. An exploratory analysis of an interprofessional learning environment in two hospital clinical teaching units. J Interprof Care 2006; 20 (1): 29–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Oandasan, I, Reeves, S. Key elements of interprofessional education. Part 2: factors, processes and outcomes. J Interprof Care 2005; 19 (suppl 1): 39–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Gillan, C, Wiljer, D, Harnett, N, Briggs, K, Catton, P. Changing stress while stressing change: the role of interprofessional education in mediating stress in the introduction of a transformative technology. J Interprof Care 2010; 24 (6): 710–721.Google Scholar
4.White, E, Kane, G. Radiation medicine practice in the image-guided radiation therapy era: new roles and new opportunities. Semin Radiat Oncol 2007; 17 (4): 298–305.Google Scholar
5.Keller, H, Jaffray, D A, Rosewall, T, White, E. Efficient on-line setup correction strategies using plan-intent functions. Med Phys 2006; 33 (5): 1388–1397.Google Scholar
6.Bell, L J, Oliver, L, Vial, Pet al. Implementation of an image-guided radiation therapy program: lessons learnt and future challenges. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2010; 54 (1): 82–89.Google Scholar
7.Grau, C, Muren, L P, Hoyer, M, Lindegaard, J, Overgaard, J. Image-guided adaptive radiotherapy – integration of biology and technology to improve clinical outcome. Acta Oncol 2008; 47 (7): 1182–1185.Google Scholar
8.Paige, J, Kozmenko, V, Morgan, Bet al. From the flight deck to the operating room: an initial pilot study of the feasibility and potential impact of true interdisciplinary team training using high-fidelity simulation. J Surg Educ 2007; 64 (6): 369–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Paige, J T, Kozmenko, V, Yang, Tet al. Attitudinal changes resulting from repetitive training of operating room personnel using of high-fidelity simulation at the point of care. Am Surg 2009; 75 (7): 584–590; discussion 90–91.Google Scholar
10.Paige, J T, Kozmenko, V, Yang, Tet al. High-fidelity, simulation-based, interdisciplinary operating room team training at the point of care. Surgery 2009; 145 (2): 138–146.Google Scholar
11.Robertson, B, Schumacher, L, Gosman, G, Kanfer, R, Kelley, M, DeVita, M. Simulation-based crisis team training for multidisciplinary obstetric providers. Simul Healthc 2009; 4 (2): 77–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Ziv, A, Ben-David, S, Ziv, M. Simulation based medical education: an opportunity to learn from errors. Med Teach 2005; 27 (3): 193–199.Google Scholar
13.Ziv, A, Wolpe, P R, Small, S D, Glick, S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Simul Healthc 2006; 1 (4): 252–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Barr, H. Evaluation, evidence and effectiveness. J Interprof Care 2005; 19 (6): 535–536.Google Scholar
15.Bogdanich, W. Radiation offers new cures, and ways to do harm. The New York Times, 23rd January 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Google Scholar
16.Bogdanich, W, Rebelo, K. A pinpoint beam strays invisibly, harming instead of healing. The New York Times, 29th December 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/health/29radiation.html?pagewanted=allGoogle Scholar
17.Pawlicki, T, Dunscombe, P B, Mundt, A J, Scalliet, P. (eds). Quality and Safety in Radiotherapy. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis; 2011. 621pp.Google Scholar
18.Bissonnette, J P, Medlam, G. Trend analysis of radiation therapy incidents over seven years. Radiother Oncol 2010; 96 (1): 139–144.Google Scholar
19.Gillan, C, Lovrics, E, Halpern, E, Wiljer, D, Harnett, N. The evaluation of learner outcomes in interprofessional continuing education: a literature review and an analysis of survey instruments. Med Teach 2011; 33 (9): e461–e470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Parsell, G, Bligh, J. The development of a questionnaire to assess the readiness of health care students for interprofessional learning (RIPLS). Medical Education 1999; 33 (2): 95–100.Google Scholar
21.Pollard, K C, Miers, M E, Gilchrist, M. Collaborative learning for collaborative working? Initial findings from a longitudinal study of health and social care students. Health & Social Care in The Community 2004; 12 (4): 346–358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Hyer, K, Skinner, J, Kane, Ret al. Using scripted video to assess interdisciplinary team effectiveness training outcomes. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 2003; 24 (2): 75–91.Google Scholar
23.Stichler, J F. Development and Psychometric Testing of a Collaborative Behavior Scale. San Diego, CA: University of San Diego, 1989.Google Scholar
24.King, S, Greidanus, E, Major, Ret al. A cross-institutional examination of readiness for interprofessional learning. J Interprof Care 2012; 26 (2): 108–114.Google Scholar
25.King, L, Lee, J L. Perceptions of collaborative practice between Navy nurses and physicians in the ICU setting. Am J Crit Care 1994; 3 (5): 331–336.Google Scholar
26.Baggs, J, Ryan, S. ICU nurse-physician collaboration & nursing satisfaction. Nurs Econ 1990; 8 (6): 386–392.Google Scholar
27.Abdelkader, R, Al-Hussami, M, Al barmawi, M, Saleh, A, Shath, T. Perception of academic nursing staff toward shared governance. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice 2012; 2 (3): 46–53.Google Scholar
28.Giuliani, M, Gillan, C, Wong, Oet al. Evaluation of high-fidelity simulation training in radiation oncology using an outcomes logic model. Radiat Oncol 2014; 9: 189–196.Google Scholar
29.Ruebling, I, Pole, D, Breitbach, A Pet al. A comparison of student attitudes and perceptions before and after an introductory interprofessional education experience. J Interprof Care 2013; 1: 23–27. [Epub 2013/09/05].Google Scholar
30.Beisel, M. What’s happening?: Alaska nurse practitioners’ and physician assistants’ perceptions of the collaboration process. J Am Acad Nurse Prac 2007; 10 (11): 509–514.Google Scholar
31.Dawson, L A, Jaffray, D A. Advances in image-guided radiation therapy. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (8): 938–946.Google Scholar