PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Ross Reid

Publications and source records attributed to Ross Reid.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Validating the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) in the postgraduate context: are health care professionals ready for IPL?

AIMS: This paper describes the process of validating the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) for use with postgraduate health care professionals. CONTEXT: The RIPLS questionnaire has proved useful in the undergraduate context, enabling tutors to assess the readiness of students to engage in interprofessional learning (IPL). With the drive in the National Health Service (NHS) to deliver health care in interprofessional teams, it seems logical to ask whether postgraduate education should, or could, be delivered successfully in interprofessional contexts. As a preliminary to undertaking an extended IPL project, the researchers tested the validity of the RIPLS tool in the postgraduate health care context. METHOD: A modified version of the RIPLS questionnaire was administered to all general practitioners, nurses, pharmacists and allied health professionals in the Dundee Local Health Care Cooperative (LHCC) (n = 799). A total of 546 staff responded (68%). RESULTS: Three factors, comprising 23 statements, emerged from the statistical analysis of the survey data, namely, teamwork and collaboration, sense of professional identity and patient-centredness. The internal consistency measure was 0.76. Analysis of variance suggested some key differences between the different professions in respect of the factors. CONCLUSIONS: The RIPLS questionnaire was validated for use in the postgraduate context, thus providing researchers with a tool for assessing health professionals' attitudes towards interprofessional learning at practice level, community health partnership level or at a national level of education and training. Significant differences between professional groups should be taken into account in designing any interprofessional learning programme.

Analysis of Variance↗

Revalidation for general practitioners: randomised comparison of two revalidation models.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two models of revalidation for general practitioners. DESIGN: Randomised comparison of two revalidation models. SETTING: Primary care in Tayside, Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: 66 Tayside general practitioners (principals and non-principals), 53 of whom completed the revalidation folders. Interventions Two revalidation models: a minimum criterion based model with revalidation as the primary purpose, and an educational outcome model with emphasis on combining revalidation with continuing professional development. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility and acceptability of each approach and effect on the doctor's continuing professional development. The ability to make a summative judgment on completed models and whether either model would allow patient groups to have confidence in the revalidation process. RESULTS: The criterion model was preferred by general practitioners. For both models doctors reported making changes to their practice and felt a positive effect on their continuing professional development. Summative assessment of the folders showed reasonable inter-rater reliability. CONCLUSIONS: The criterion model provides a practical and acceptable model for general practitioners to use when preparing for revalidation.

Accreditation↗