Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Interprof Educ Pract. 2016 Sep;4:41-49. doi: 10.1016/j.xjep.2016.05.002. Epub 2016 Jul 19.

Implementation of interprofessional education (IPE) in 16 U.S. medical schools: Common practices, barriers and facilitators.

Author information

1
Texas A&M University Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Bryan, TX, USA.
2
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
3
Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
4
David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
5
Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
6
Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
7
University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
8
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
9
Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY, USA.
10
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA.
11
Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Enhanced patient outcomes and accreditation criteria have led schools to integrate interprofessional education (IPE). While several studies describe IPE curricula at individual institutions, few examine practices across multiple institutions.

PURPOSE:

To examine the IPE integration at different institutions and determine gaps where there is potential for improvement.

METHOD:

In this mixed methods study, we obtained survey results from 16 U.S. medical schools, 14 of which reported IPE activities.

RESULTS:

The most common collaboration was between medical and nursing schools (93%). The prevalent format was shared curriculum, often including integrated modules (57%). Small group activities represented the majority (64%) of event settings, and simulation-based learning, games and role-play (71%) were the most utilized learning methods. Thirteen schools (81.3%) reported teaching IPE competencies, but significant variation existed. Gaps and barriers in the study include limitations of using a convenience sample, limited qualitative analysis, and survey by self-report.

CONCLUSIONS:

Most IPE activities focused on the physician role. Implementation challenges included scheduling, logistics and financial support. A need for effective faculty development as well as measures to examine the link between IPE learning outcomes and patient outcomes were identified.

KEYWORDS:

Collaboration; Interprofessional education; Interprofessional learning; Mixed methods

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center