Collaboration and Leadership Reflection Video guide
A 5-10 minute recorded video reflection on a real interprofessional collaboration experience, plus recommendations for the Vila Health: Collaboration for Change scenario, covering resource waste from poor collaboration, best-practice leadership strategies and best-practice collaboration strategies, with at least three cited sources and an APA reference list.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 12, 2026
How should ten minutes be split between your story and Vila Health?
The assessment has two subjects and the scoring guide marks both, which is where most submissions come apart. The first is your own collaboration experience, examined for what went well and what did not. The second is the Vila Health scenario, a different organisation with a different failure, for which you are asked to make recommendations. It is easy to spend eight of your ten minutes on your own story because it is the part you already know, and then to give Vila Health ninety seconds of general advice. The scoring guide does not weight them that way. Plan the runtime before you record: roughly a third on your experience, a third on Vila Health, and a third on the two best-practice strategies, each of which has to be attributed to a named author. Writing those proportions on a card before you start recording is the cheapest thing you can do for this assessment.
The criterion that is skipped most often is the financial half of one sentence. You are asked to identify how poor collaboration results in inefficient management of human and financial resources, supported by evidence from the literature. Human resources come naturally: burnout, turnover, wasted clinician time, duplicated effort. Financial resources are where reflections go quiet, because it feels like guesswork. It is not. The literature attaches costs to the things you are already describing — nurse turnover has a replacement cost per vacancy, duplicated diagnostics have a unit price, an extended length of stay has a daily rate, a preventable adverse event has a documented cost range. Naming one such figure, with a citation, converts a complaint into an argument, and it is the single highest-value sentence in the whole recording. One defensible figure, clearly attributed, does more than a paragraph of adjectives about how costly poor teamwork is.
The format is a video, not a paper read aloud, and the assessment tells you so by pointing at an example of citing sources in an oral presentation. That means the citation happens in speech — "as Smith and colleagues found in 2019" — with the full reference in the accompanying APA list. Two more format consequences follow. A script written for the page runs long and sounds recited, so write in speaking sentences and time yourself against the ten-minute ceiling before you record. And because the criteria include being easily audible and using proper grammar, a single clean take with acceptable audio scores better than a polished script delivered badly. Use the gap-analysis frame the brief supplies — what happened, what went well, what did not, what should have happened — as your spoken structure, so the listener can hear the sections rather than having to infer them from a continuous monologue.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Reflect on a collaboration experience by naming both what worked and what did not.
- 02Attach a cited financial figure to a described collaboration failure.
- 03Transfer lessons from personal experience into recommendations for a different organisation.
- 04Attribute a leadership strategy and a collaboration strategy to named authors.
- 05Cite sources orally in a recorded presentation rather than in written text.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01A 5-10 minute video reflection recorded in Kaltura.
- 02A reflection on an interprofessional collaboration experience, noting successful and unsuccessful aspects.
- 03An account of how poor collaboration wastes human and financial resources, with literature support.
- 04At least one best-practice leadership strategy from the literature, attributed to an author.
- 05At least one best-practice interdisciplinary collaboration strategy, attributed to an author.
- 06Recommendations for the Vila Health: Collaboration for Change scenario.
- 07An APA reference list citing at least three professional or scholarly sources.
A spoken structure for the reflection and the recommendations
Open with the experience, briefly
Set the scene in under a minute: setting, who was involved, what the collaboration was for.
Gap analysis of your experience
What happened, what went well, what did not, what should have happened — spoken as four distinct beats.
The resource argument
Connect the failure to wasted human resources and to a cited financial cost.
Vila Health: what went wrong
Identify the collaboration failures in the scenario and their implications for that organisation's resources.
Two attributed strategies
One leadership best practice and one collaboration best practice, each named, sourced, and applied to Vila Health.
Close and record
Summarise the recommendation in two sentences, then rehearse once against the clock before recording.
Where the cost evidence for poor collaboration is documented
Recommended databases
- IPEC
- AHRQ
- Capella library (CINAHL, Business Source)
- PubMed
Search sequence
- 1.Find the cost figure first — it is the hardest element and it shapes which failure you choose to describe.
- 2.Search for turnover cost, duplicated testing cost or excess length of stay attributable to communication failure.
- 3.Use the IPEC competencies to name your collaboration strategy in a form the assessor recognises.
- 4.Use TeamSTEPPS for concrete, citable team tools rather than abstract leadership advice.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
IPEC Core Competencies
Interprofessional Education Collaborative · 2023
The competency language the assessment is built on; use it to name your collaboration strategy in terms the scoring guide recognises.
- 02
TeamSTEPPS 3.0
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · 2024
Concrete, attributable team tools — huddles, briefs, closed-loop communication — that make a best-practice strategy specific rather than aspirational.
- 03
Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Roles
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Role boundaries within an interdisciplinary team, useful when explaining why a particular handoff failed in your own experience.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Spending most of the runtime on your own experience and leaving Vila Health a token minute.
- Describing the human cost of poor collaboration and never touching the financial cost, which the criterion names explicitly.
- Reading an essay aloud, which runs over time and sounds recited.
- Naming a leadership strategy without attributing it to an author, which the criteria require.
- Reflecting only on what went wrong, when the criterion asks for successful and unsuccessful aspects.
- Omitting the APA reference list because the deliverable is a video.
Submission checklist
- The recording is between five and ten minutes.
- Both your own experience and the Vila Health scenario are addressed substantively.
- The reflection names successes as well as failures.
- A financial cost is stated and cited, not just a human one.
- One leadership strategy and one collaboration strategy are each attributed to a named author.
- Sources are cited aloud in the recording.
- An APA reference list with three or more sources accompanies the video.
- Audio is clear and the delivery is audible throughout.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.