Caroline Carlisle
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Caroline Carlisle has a total of 3 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Caroline Watkins
Stroke Research Team, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Lancashire, Preston, UK
1 shared publication Helen Cooper
University of Liverpool, UK
1 shared publication- Tracy Ibbotson
Department of General Practice and Primary Care, The University of Glasgow, 1 Horselethill Road, Glasgow G12 9LX, United Kingdom
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 30 November 2005
- Published by Elsevier in Nurse Education Today
- Vol. 25 (8) , 625-626
Commentary on “Quality assurance in nurse education – The social context of learning” by P.A. Morrall [Nurse Education Today 9 (1989) 236–241]
- 30 November 2005
- Published by Elsevier in Nurse Education Today
- Vol. 25 (8) , 625-626
Commentary on “Quality assurance in nurse education – The social context of learning” by P.A. Morrall [Nurse Education Today 9 (1989) 236–241]
- 31 October 2005
- Published by Elsevier in Nurse Education Today
- Vol. 25 (7) , 527-541
Introducing problem-based learning into research methods teaching: Student and facilitator evaluation
- 31 October 2005
- Published by Elsevier in Nurse Education Today
- Vol. 25 (7) , 527-541
Introducing problem-based learning into research methods teaching: Student and facilitator evaluation
- 1 September 2004
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Medical Teacher
- Vol. 26 (6) , 545-552
“Do none of you talk to each other?”: the challenges facing the implementation of interprofessional education
There is a growing interest internationally in the development of interprofessional education (IPE), with the potential goal of achieving more effective healthcare delivery. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of introducing IPE within undergraduate health professional programmes, using a systematic review of the evidence and focus-group interviews. This paper reports findings from the focus-group interviews. Three focus-group interviews, each lasting two hours, were conducted. Participants (n = 34) were drawn from the clinical and academic environments, from health service consumers and from health professional students. Two areas were explored: (1) the feasibility of IPE and (2) perceptions of its effects. Each focus group had a primary facilitator who led the group discussion and a second facilitator audiotaping discussions and writing observational notes. Three main themes emerged: the advantages of IPE, the challenges of initiating IPE, and the role of IPE in the creation of professional identification. There was consensus in the view that IPE had much potential in breaking down traditional barriers to team working, including professional ‘tribalism’. It is important for IPE to be integrated with interprofessional experiences in clinical practice. Further empirical work, focusing on student and patient outcomes in IPE, is needed.
- 1 September 2004
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Medical Teacher
- Vol. 26 (6) , 545-552
“Do none of you talk to each other?”: the challenges facing the implementation of interprofessional education
There is a growing interest internationally in the development of interprofessional education (IPE), with the potential goal of achieving more effective healthcare delivery. The aim of this study is to explore the feasibility of introducing IPE within undergraduate health professional programmes, using a systematic review of the evidence and focus-group interviews. This paper reports findings from the focus-group interviews. Three focus-group interviews, each lasting two hours, were conducted. Participants (n = 34) were drawn from the clinical and academic environments, from health service consumers and from health professional students. Two areas were explored: (1) the feasibility of IPE and (2) perceptions of its effects. Each focus group had a primary facilitator who led the group discussion and a second facilitator audiotaping discussions and writing observational notes. Three main themes emerged: the advantages of IPE, the challenges of initiating IPE, and the role of IPE in the creation of professional identification. There was consensus in the view that IPE had much potential in breaking down traditional barriers to team working, including professional ‘tribalism’. It is important for IPE to be integrated with interprofessional experiences in clinical practice. Further empirical work, focusing on student and patient outcomes in IPE, is needed.