Herzing BH700 Unit 3 Initial Discussion: Interprofessional Collaborative Practice Guide + Example

The Unit 3 Initial Discussion asks you to watch a 15:51 video, What is Interprofessional Collaborative Practice?, and write a reflective, evidence-informed post that addresses three prompts: how your own background and privilege shape your interpretation, what organizational or policy leverage point could enable change, and who benefits or is left behind by the practices shown. This is a reflection task grounded in evidence, not a video summary. For the rest of the course structure, see the Herzing BH700 Course Guide.

Unit 3: Initial Discussion – Interprofessional Collaborative Practice

Instructions:

Complete the prompt below to complete your initial post:

• View the assigned video.   What is Interprofessional Collaborative Practice? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ZJE_rQ4is Links to an external site. 15:51  (link provided) and submit a reflective, evidence‑informed initial post. Cite 1–2 timestamps where relevant and support your reflections with at least two peer‑reviewed sources.
  • How do your personal background, professional role, and privileges shape how you interpret the video? What assumptions might you need to set aside to better hear perspectives different from your own?
  • Which organizational or policy-level factors enable or hinder the changes suggested by the video? Identify one leverage point within your system where you could realistically influence change.
  • Who benefits most from the practices shown in the video, and who might be left behind? Propose one modification to make the approach more equitable.

Please be sure to validate your opinions and ideas with citations and references in APA format.

What the Discussion Is Asking You to Do

1. Watch the video and identify 1-2 specific moments (timestamps) worth reflecting on.

2. Reflect on positionality. How do your background, professional role, and privileges shape how you interpret the video? What assumptions might you need to set aside?

3. Identify a leverage point. Which organizational or policy-level factors enable or hinder the changes the video suggests? Name one leverage point within your own system where you could realistically influence change.

4. Evaluate equity. Who benefits most from the practices shown, and who might be left behind? Propose one modification to make the approach more equitable.

5. Support all three with evidence. Cite 1-2 video timestamps where relevant, plus at least two peer-reviewed sources.

The video itself defines interprofessional collaborative practice and reviews why it matters. Your post needs to go further than that definition: it needs to apply the three reflection prompts to your own position and system, with evidence backing each claim.

The Three Reflection Prompts, Broken Down

Positionality and privilege. This prompt is not asking you to recite the video’s content. It is asking what you personally bring into the room, your discipline, your role’s relative authority, your prior team experiences, and how that shapes what you notice or miss. A generic “everyone has biases” sentence will not satisfy this; naming a specific assumption tied to your actual role will.

Organizational or policy leverage point. The video describes forces pushing healthcare toward collaboration (rising complexity, more comorbidities, more specialists per patient). Your job is to identify one place within your own system, not healthcare broadly, where a policy or organizational change could realistically move things forward. Vague statements like “leadership should support collaboration” are too broad; name a specific process (onboarding, scheduling, documentation, escalation protocols) you could plausibly influence.

Equity. Ask who the video’s vision of collaboration assumes as the “default” patient, and who does not fit that assumption. Patients facing language barriers, stigma, or reduced ability to advocate for themselves may need something the video does not explicitly address. Propose one concrete, specific modification, not a general call for “more equity.”

How to Cite the Video Timestamps

APA 7 allows citing a specific point in an audiovisual work using a timestamp in place of a page number. In text, this looks like (Wamsley, n.d., 6:17) or, if you are citing the same source repeatedly in one paragraph, you can name the speaker and timestamp in the sentence itself: “Around the 8:16 mark, Wamsley explains that…” Use timestamps for moments you are directly responding to or building on, not for every claim in your post.

Fictional Discussion Example

Fictional Example for Illustration Only. Do Not Submit as Your Own Work.

The reflection below is written from the perspective of a fictional healthcare administrator at Riverside Community Health Center, the same fictional setting used on the BH700 Unit 1 Identify Topic and Setting Guide and the BH700 Unit 2 Proposal Guide. All personal and organizational details are fictional and used only to demonstrate how a student can connect the video’s content to their own role and system.

Watching Wamsley’s overview of interprofessional collaborative practice, my own background as a healthcare administrator shapes what I notice first: workflow and role clarity, rather than the clinician-patient relationship centered in much of the video. That lens is a limitation. I default to systems thinking and may undervalue how power differentials between professions, not just unclear roles, shape whether team members actually speak up (Wamsley, n.d., 6:17).

Wamsley defines interprofessional collaborative practice using the World Health Organization’s framework: multiple health workers from different professions working with patients, families, and communities to deliver care (Wamsley, n.d., 1:37). What the video does not fully address is that collaboration still occurs within hierarchies. Cahn (2020) argues that interprofessional collaborative practice, because it already requires renegotiating who holds authority on a care team, is a natural structure for confronting racism and inequity in care delivery rather than a neutral add-on to existing hierarchy.

At the organizational level, one realistic leverage point is onboarding: new hires rarely receive explicit training on team roles or escalation norms, which lets informal hierarchy persist by default. A concrete implication for practice: organizations should build interprofessional role clarification into onboarding rather than treating it as an optional in-service.

On equity, the video’s vision of collaboration benefits patients whose conditions map cleanly onto existing team structures. Patients facing language barriers or stigma, who need a team member to actively advocate across a hierarchy, may be left behind if collaboration is assumed rather than structured. Tervalon and Murray-García (1998) frame this as a call for cultural humility: providers must continually examine their own power and assumptions rather than assuming good intentions produce equitable teamwork. One modification: assign a designated advocate role on each team specifically responsible for flagging when a patient’s needs are not being represented in team discussion.

References

Cahn, P. S. (2020). How interprofessional collaborative practice can help dismantle systemic racism. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 34(4), 431-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2020.1790224

Tervalon, M., & Murray-García, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus cultural competence: A critical distinction in defining physician training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2), 117-125. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2010.0233

Wamsley, M. (n.d.). What is interprofessional collaborative practice? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ZJE_rQ4is

Common Problems in This Discussion

• Summarizing the video’s definitions instead of reflecting on your own position.
• Answering the three prompts generically, without connecting them to your actual role or system.
• Naming a leverage point too broad to act on (“leadership should change”).
• Treating the equity prompt as an afterthought rather than proposing a real modification.
• Citing the video without a timestamp for the specific moment referenced.
• Omitting the required research, practice, or policy implication.

30-Second Final Check

• 250-300 words.
• Positionality/privilege prompt addressed with a specific, not generic, reflection.
• Organizational or policy leverage point named and specific to your own system.
• Equity prompt addressed with a concrete proposed modification.
• 1-2 video timestamps cited where relevant.
• At least two peer-reviewed scholarly sources used.
• Clear thesis and logical organization.
• Limitation, counterargument, or alternative interpretation included.
• One concrete research, practice, or policy implication included.
• APA 7 citations and references included, with DOI or link.
• Writing is professional and concise.

Need a Second Look Before You Post?

A 250-300 word reflective post leaves little room to address three prompts and two citations without careful planning. Gradevia can review whether your positionality reflection, leverage point, equity analysis, and evidence are clearly connected before you submit.

WhatsApp: +1 564-544-6924