Beyond curriculum: embedding interprofessional collaborationinto academic culture

Karim Bandali, Bradley Niblett, Timothy Pok Chi Yeung, and Paul Gamble

The Michener Institute for Applied Health Sciences, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1V4 Canada

INTRODUCTION

Current healthcare education in Canada is marked by theintegration of interprofessional education (IPE) into thecurriculum. Students from different health professions thatwere educated in ‘‘silos’’ are now educated using acollaborative model where they can learn, with, from, andabout each other in an interprofessional environment(CAIPE, 2002). As an institution that is dedicated toeducation in applied health sciences, The Michener Institutefor Applied Health Sciences (Michener) has established aninnovative academic curriculum that integrates both simula-tion-based education and IPE. This was done to enhancestudents’ readiness for clinical practice in a team-basedhealthcare environment (Bandali et al., 2008; Robertson &Bandali, 2008).

This new learning environment also promotes an innova-tive academic community to model the principles of thiscollaborative curriculum, which logically led to the need tocreate and implement new academic policies and procedures.The need for new policies and procedures is a direct result ofthe development of new academic scenarios and opportunitiesthat typically do not arise in a traditional healthcare educationcurriculum. Thus, the success of such a transformationrequires the development of appropriate support structuresat the organization level.

Academic leadership and governance in most Canadianhigher education institutions (e.g. universities and colleges) laywithin a governance body called the ‘‘academic senate’’.However, Canadian pedagogical literature has raised concernsover the effectiveness of the traditional academic senate (Joneset al., 2004) which include:

. The hierarchical and bureaucratic structure that producesa profound gap in relationships between administrations,faculty, and students;

. The balance of senate memberships to represent andadvance the best interest of the institution as a whole;

. Ineffective communications between senate and subcom-mittees and working groups; and

. The lack clarity of purpose and responsibility of thesenate, and the lack of performance evaluation (Joneset al., 2004).

This traditional model is not conducive to open andtransparent discussions across multiple levels of anacademic institution that are undergoing transformationalchange. To support innovative healthcare education, anacademic senate must be able to effectively and efficientlyrespond to contemporary, dynamic, interdependent andcomplex challenges that are driven by interprofessionalcollaboration. It must also foster ‘‘change agents’’ orchampions, a cultural shift, and a strong campus-commu-nity partnership that are essential factors that canpotentially enable a successful implementation of a newacademic direction – one that embraces IPE and simulation(Robertson & Bandali, 2008). The newly designed Michenersenate model aims to create an organic collaborativeleadership environment that simultaneously integrates andmodels the principals of IPE in much the same manner aswhat is expected of the students in the curriculum.

THE MICHENER SENATE A MODEL OFCOLLABORATIVE INTERPROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP INACADEMIC GOVERNANCE

The Michener senate aims to enhance capacity andsustainability through collaborative leadership. Collabora-tive leadership, as defined by Michener, is a mutuallybeneficial relationship between all members of the Michenercommunity, including management, faculty, staff, students,clinical partners/educators, and alumni to achieve commongoals by sharing responsibility, authority, and accountabilityfor achieving results. This promotes a balanced interprofes-sional forum for collaborative discussions. This model

Correspondence: Dr. Karim Bandali, Ph.D., Department of Business Development, The Michener Institute for Applied Health Sciences, 222 St.Patrick Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1V4 Canada. E-mail: kbandali@michener.ca

Journal of Interprofessional Care, 2011, 25: 75–76� 2011 Informa UK, Ltd.ISSN 1356-1820 print/1469-9567 onlineDOI: 10.3109/13561820.2010.503948

75

J In

terp

rof

Car

e D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/10

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.

fosters a climate of trust, positive inter-dependence andpersonal interactions for the purpose of creating a sharedvision and joint strategies to address challenges andopportunities. The Michener senate model provides a levelof innovation and advancement that challenges thelimitations that exist in the traditional academic senategovernance of higher education institutions in Canada(Figure 1).

The Michener senate is comprised of three entities: workinggroups, standing committees, and a cabinet (Figure 1). Theworking groups are comprised of any established task forces,committees, or teams that are working towards the accom-plishment of an organizational goal. These working groupshave the responsibility to advance Michener’s vision andmission, and align with a Michener senate standing committeein order to discuss the challenges and opportunities andthereby leverage organizational expertise and best practices.

The standing committees represent Michener’s fivestrategic directions; they are:

. Academic innovation

. Knowledge transfer

. People

. Quality

. Resource innovation

These five strategic directions are instrumental to theMichener senate because they are the central focus ofdiscussions and new ideas that are brought forth by theworking groups and standing committees. Essentially, anyissues or recommendations discussed in the Michenersenate must relate to the strategic intent and advanceMichener’s five strategic directions in order to ensurealignment with the new curricular model.

The cabinet of the senate is responsible for advisingMichener’s executive leadership team (ELT) in regards toany motions brought forth by the standing committees. Asenate committee, having identified a motion, prepares adiscussion paper detailing the motion and its potential long-term impact on Michener’s future. The discussion paper isthen distributed to each standing committee for discussionprior to convening the cabinet. The recommendation to theELT will occur by vote, after dialogue and deliberation hastaken place by representatives from each of the standingcommittees at the cabinet level. The Michener senate ispositioned in an advisory capacity, as opposed to thetraditional decision-making capacity to the ELT.

The three entities of The Michener senate (Figure 1)illustrate the organic nature of the Michener senatestructure in that it provides shared and equal opportunityfor representation, and it promotes the perpetual flow ofinformation and interconnection. Therefore, the Michenersenate is a cohesive system in which the entire Michenercommunity work together to achieve Michener’s strategicintent of best experience, best education.

As the senate matures and becomes interwoven into thefabric of the academic culture and new curriculum, anevaluation is underway to examine the effectiveness of thepre-implementation strategic-planning, communication de-liverables, and pilot activities. This evaluation plan willgradually become more comprehensive, as informed by theexploratory phase, utilizing a comprehensive conceptualframework to the overall effectiveness and impact of theMichener senate model.

The Michener senate is a novel senate model proposed toenable interprofessional collaborative leadership at theorganization level to provide the appropriate structure tosupport the implementation of the new academic directionfocused on IPE, simulation-based education, and compe-tency assessment. This will ultimately contribute towards theoverall effectiveness and promotion of organizationalprogress while establishing continuous improvement mea-sures and embracing academic innovation in the spirit ofinterprofessionalism.

Declaration of interestThe authors report no conflicts of interest. The authorsalone are responsible for the content and writing of thearticle.

REFERENCES

Bandali, K., Parker, K., Mummery, M., & Preece, M. (2008). Skillsintegration in a simulated and interprofessional environment: aninnovative undergraduate applied health curriculum. Journal ofInterprofessional Care, 22(2), 179–189.

Centre for Advancement in Interprofessional Education (CAIPE).(2002). Interprofessional education – a definition. Retrieved 10May 2010 from: http://www.caipe.org.uk/

Jones, G.A., Shanahan, T., & Goyan, P. (2004). The academic senateand university governance in Canada. The Canadian Journal ofHigher Education, 34(2), 35–68.

Robertson, J., & Bandali, K. (2008). Bridging the gap: enhancinginterprofessional education using simulation. Journal of Inter-professional Care, 22(5), 499–508.

76 K. BANDALI ET AL.

Journal of Interprofessional Care

J In

terp

rof

Car

e D

ownl

oade

d fr

om in

form

ahea

lthca

re.c

om b

y U

nive

rsita

t de

Gir

ona

on 1

1/10

/14

For

pers

onal

use

onl

y.