26 Chapter 2 particular level of competence for each group, (2) simulate a clinical setting, where students of specific professions can play their own role and (3) demand the use of interprofessional collaborative competencies (Azer et al., 2012; Kim et al., 2006). While a few articles have described tips for constructing cases, there is a lack of literature on how to construct cases using scientifically proved methods (Azer et al., 2012; Cohen et al., 2017). Moreover, there is no literature on how to construct cases for IPE. To determine the content of a constructed case, for example the symptoms, medical problems or social circumstances often seen in clinical practice, it is essential to consult with experts. However, the involvement of several experts can make it difficult to reach consensus about the content of the cases (Humphrey-Murto et al., 2017). Consensus methods can facilitate this process. The three most commonly used consensus methods are: the Delphi Technique (DT), the Nominal Group Process (NGP) and the Consensus Development Panel (CDP) (Waggoner et al., 2016). These three methods have different characteristics, which are explained in Table 1. DT is widely used for reaching consensus among the opinions of different experts (HSu & Sandford, 2007). The data are collected using a series of questionnaires, which are sent to a selected group of experts. NGP is a consensus method based on a face-to-face meeting with the experts involved (McMillan et al., 2016). During the face-to-face meeting, experts can discuss each other’s ideas about one or more problems. CDP is also based on face-to-face interaction; it was developed by the National Institutes of Health to formulate guidelines and statements. This technique allows a multidisciplinary approach of different experts; therefore, it can be useful in healthcare policy making (Waggoner et al., 2016). In a comparative study, Waggoner et al. found that none of these methods is preferred over the other; they summarised the characteristics of the different methods by reviewing the current literature (Waggoner et al., 2016). Table 2.1 presents an overview of the different aspects of the three methods (Waggoner et al., 2016).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw