PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11107017

Putting teamwork in context.

Abstract

Multidisciplinary teamwork is becoming more important in both the delivery of health care and in the organization and management of that delivery. The first of these has been accepted but traditional professional education has done little to address the challenge it presents to professionals. Recent reforms in the British NHS have made the challenge more urgent. Professionals must work together but in increasingly flexible and innovatory ways. They are also required to play more formal roles in NHS management and policy. Where teamwork has been addressed in professional education it has concentrated on the inter-personal dynamics of working teams. This remains important but to respond effectively to the new challenges curricula and educational practice will have to be clearer about the variety of teams involved and the importance of the context within which teams work. One view is offered as to how that context might be understood in order to map team diversity. Two models are offered to help develop multidisciplinary team learning. One of these deals with key aspects of the organizational setting and the other with factors that affect team processes. It is argued that both should help to facilitate multidisciplinary curriculum development but also suggest learning needs to be met within unidisciplinary professional education. Concentration on team dynamics alone will not deliver the teamwork required in the new NHS.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

N Boaden, J Leaviss. 2000. Putting teamwork in context.. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2000.00794.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Myco-Ed: Mycological curriculum for education and discovery.

Fungi are important and hyperdiverse organisms, yet chronically understudied. Most fungal clades have no reference genomes, impeding our understanding of their ecosystem functions and use as solutions in health and biotechnology. Also, opportunities for training in fungal biology and genomics are lacking, creating a bottleneck that hinders the recruitment and cultivation of a talented future mycological workforce. To address these issues, we developed Myco-Ed, an educational program offering training and scientific contributions through genome sequencing and analysis. Myco-Ed empowers students to pursue careers in fungal biology while improving fungal resources. Myco-Ed has been piloted at 12 institutions (15 classrooms) ranging from online e-Campuses to R1 universities, resulting in hundreds of fungal observations and many new high-quality reference genomes.

Curriculum↗

Toward a national consensus: teaching radiobiology to radiation oncology residents.

PURPOSE: The ASTRO Joint Working Group on Radiobiology Teaching, a committee composed of members having affiliations with several national radiation oncology and biology-related societies and organizations, commissioned a survey designed to address issues of manpower, curriculum standardization, and instructor feedback as they relate to resident training in radiation biology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation biology instructors at U.S. radiation oncology training programs were identified and asked to respond to a comprehensive electronic questionnaire dealing with instructor educational background, radiation biology course content, and sources of feedback with respect to curriculum planning and resident performance on standardized radiation biology examinations. RESULTS: Eighty-five radiation biology instructors were identified, representing 73 radiation oncology residency training programs. A total of 52 analyzable responses to the questionnaire were received, corresponding to a response rate of 61.2%. CONCLUSION: There is a decreasing supply of instructors qualified to teach classic, and to some extent, clinical, radiobiology to radiation oncology residents. Additionally, those instructors with classic training in radiobiology are less likely to be comfortable teaching cancer molecular biology or other topics in cancer biology. Thus, a gap exists in teaching the whole complement of cancer and radiobiology curricula, particularly in those programs in which the sole responsibility for teaching falls to one faculty member (50% of training programs are in this category). On average, the percentage of total teaching time devoted to classic radiobiology (50%), clinical radiobiology (30%), and molecular and cancer biology (20%) is appropriate, relative to the current makeup of the board examination. Nevertheless large variability exists between training programs with respect to the total number of contact hours per complete radiobiology course (ranging from approximately 10 to >50 h). A number of lecture topics, particularly in clinical radiobiology, are covered by fewer than 60% of training programs. A sizeable minority of radiation biology instructors are dissatisfied with the feedback they receive with respect to both course content and the performance of their residents on standardized radiobiology examinations administered by the American College of Radiology and/or the American Board of Radiology.

Curriculum↗