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

Courtney West; Lori Graham; Ryan T Palmer; Marissa Fuqua Miller; Erin K Thayer; Margaret L Stuber; Linda Awdishu; Rachel A Umoren; Maria A Wamsley; Elizabeth A Nelson; Pablo A Joo; James W Tysinger; Paul George; Patricia A Carney

doi:10.1016/j.xjep.2016.05.002

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

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

Authors

Affiliations

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.

Abstract

Grants and funding