ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
The Validation of Geriatric Cases for Interprofessional Education: A Consensus Method.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Iteratively refined ChatGPT outperforms clinical mentors in generating high-quality interprofessional education clinical scenarios: a comparative study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Interprofessional collaboration skills and motivation one year after an interprofessional educational intervention for undergraduate medical and nursing students.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Geriatric interprofessional education for enhancing students' interest in treating older people.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2024Article
- How does interprofessional education influence students' perceptions of collaboration in the clinical setting? A qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- The Differences in Content of Health Care Plans of Medical and Nursing Students in Interprofessional and Uniprofessional Education.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCase-based Interprofessional Education (IPE) can help students practise their roles and responsibilities. To construct these cases, input from experts in clinical practice is essential. Consensus between these experts can be facilitated using consensus methods. In this study, a geriatric focus for the cases was chosen because of the interprofessional nature of geriatrics and the ageing population in healthcare facilities.
methodsBy combining the 3 most commonly used consensus methods, we developed a 6-step approach to validate cases for IPE. The 6 steps include 3 expert rounds (Steps 1, 3 and 5) and 2 rounds in which discussion points were formulated by the researcher (Steps 2 and 4). The cases were piloted with students as Step 6. Four facets of a case were included: the patient description, the complemented treatment plan, the difficulty of the case and the scoring of the treatment plan. Our educational setting required constructing 4 cases with increasing difficulty. Results: Step 1: 5 typical geriatric cases were assembled. Step 2: Similar characteristics were defined; 5 cases were merged into 4. The 4 cases showed increasing difficulty levels. Step 3: The constructed cases were validated for patient description authenticity, treatment plan adequacy, difficulty and scoring of the treatment plan. Step 4: The items for further discussion were defined. Step 5: Consensus was reached for all 4 cases through a face-to-face discussion. Step 6: The student pilot for Case 1 showed no significant adjustments.
conclusionWe developed a 6-step consensus method to validate cases for IPE, and we constructed 4 geriatric cases based on this method. While consensus about the patient descriptions and difficulty levels was reached easily, consensus on the treatment plans was more difficult to achieve. Validation of the scoring of the treatment plan was unsuccessful. Further research on this will be conducted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.