MPH 610 Week 8 ILE Portfolio Reflection Example

Integrative Learning Experience Portfolio and Reflection: An Index of Three Products From the Kessler County Rabies Program, and My Week 3 Ratings Revisited

Student Name

Chamberlain University

MPH 610: Integrative Learning Experience (ILE) and Applied Practice Experience (APE) I

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Integrative Learning Experience Portfolio and Reflection: An Index of Three Products From the Kessler County Rabies Program, and My Week 3 Ratings Revisited

Portfolio Index

The portfolio holds what I produced for the county's rabies program, plus the stakeholder analysis that guided adoption. They are listed in the order they were produced. Each entry gives what the product is, who received it and when, and where in it each competency is evidenced.

Table 1

Portfolio Index Mapping Artifacts to Competencies

Note. Note. Page numbers refer to each artifact as filed in the portfolio.

Ratings Revisited by Name

In week 3 I rated five competencies. Here each is revisited against the products.

Applying epidemiological methods, rated developing, now competent. The cleaning log shows rules that the manager reran on January 2026 data without my help, and the rate table uses correct denominators and separates wildlife contacts from domestic bites, consistent with national patterns (Boutelle et al., 2025). I do not rate it proficient, because the area analysis covers only three of five planning areas.

Interpreting data for practice, rated developing, now competent. The board summary recommends a summer temporary technician from June to August, based on summer reports running nearly twice the winter rate, and the manager has put that request into the next budget.

Written communication, rated competent, unchanged. The protocol and script were revised after testing against 10 past calls and after comments from the emergency department, and the health officer approved them with two changes. The evidence supports competent, which is where I started.

Interprofessional teamwork, rated beginning, now developing. The change log records four changes made after meetings with the nurse educator and an attending physician. I rate it developing, not competent, because the medical director's agreement came through the nurse educator rather than a meeting I led.

Stakeholder partnership, rated beginning, now developing. The stakeholder analysis named the medical director as the person who could defeat the protocol by ignoring it, and the engagement plan worked: the protocol is now in the emergency department's reference folder.

One Thing I Got Wrong

I got the schedule wrong. My work plan budgeted no time for waiting, and 12% of my first four weeks went to waiting for de-identified data and for meetings. As a result, the report covers fewer planning areas than planned. I should have asked the manager in week 1 how long a data request usually takes, rather than assuming it would be quick. In any future project at a public agency, I will budget time for access as a deliverable in its own right.

What the Experience Showed About Practice

The most important lesson is that a protocol is only as useful as the clinicians outside the department who choose to follow it. The study showing unnecessary courses when animals could have been observed (Moran et al., 2000) was persuasive to the nurse educator, but the decision to place the protocol where clinicians would see it depended on her trust with the medical director, not on the evidence. The national recommendations (Rupprecht et al., 2010) gave the protocol its content; relationships gave it a place in the emergency department.

What Remains Open

Any fall in courses started for animals that could have been observed will not be known until the six-month check the manager has scheduled. I will not claim the protocol changed practice until that check is done and its results are shared with the program and the emergency department.

The Site's Paperwork Is Separate

My preceptor's evaluation, the site agreement and any record of hours are completed by the site and the program through their own forms. They are not part of this portfolio or reflection, which contains only the work I produced and my assessment of it.

References

Boutelle, C., Bonaparte, S., Orciari, L. A., Kirby, J. D., Chipman, R. B., Fehlner-Gardiner, C., Thang, C., Julien, D., Hirose, J. A. M., García, B. C., Wallace, R. M., & Blanton, J. D. (2025). Rabies surveillance in the United States during 2023. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 263(10), 1310-1317. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.25.05.0344

Moran, G. J., Talan, D. A., Mower, W., Newdow, M., Ong, S., Nakase, J. Y., Pinner, R. W., & Childs, J. E. (2000). Appropriateness of rabies postexposure prophylaxis treatment for animal exposures. JAMA, 284(8), 1001-1007. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.8.1001

Rupprecht, C. E., Briggs, D., Brown, C. M., Franka, R., Katz, S. L., Kerr, H. D., Lett, S. M., Levis, R., Meltzer, M. I., Schaffner, W., & Cieslak, P. R. (2010). Use of a reduced (4-dose) vaccine schedule for postexposure prophylaxis to prevent human rabies: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 59(RR-2), 1-9.