Interprofessional Education: A Review and Analysis of Programs From Three Academic Health Centers

Western University of Health Sciences, Pomona, CA 91766, USA.
Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges (Impact Factor: 2.93). 05/2012; 87(7):949-55. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182583374
Source: PubMed


The past decade witnessed momentum toward redesigning the U.S. health care system with the intent to improve quality of care. To achieve and sustain this change, health professions education must likewise reform to prepare future practitioners to optimize their ability to participate in the new paradigm of health care delivery. Recognizing that interprofessional education (IPE) is gaining momentum as a crucial aspect of health care professions training, this article provides an introduction to IPE programs from three different academic health centers, which were developed and implemented to train health care practitioners who provide patient-centered, collaborative care. The three participating programs are briefly described, as well as the processes and some lessons learned that were critical in the process of adopting IPE programs in their respective institutions. Critical aspects of each program are described to allow comparison of the critical building blocks for developing an IPE program. Among those building blocks, the authors present information on the planning processes of the different institutions, the competencies that each program aims to instill in the graduates, the snapshot of the three curricular models, and the assessment strategies used by each institution. The authors conclude by providing details that may provide insight for academic institutions considering implementation of IPE programs.

1 Follower
7 Reads
  • Source
    • "Conclusion Hospitals are structured to provide opportunities for clinical care and education for patients, along with clinical education and training of future and current health care providers (Aston et al., 2012) within an environment in which research and innovation are core activities. Hospital administrators are expected to encourage and support knowledge translation and exchange activities, such as translating new knowledge into cost-effective best practices, developing new frameworks for delivering optimal care and innovating interventions and medications to improve treatments and health outcomes (Oborn et al., 2013; Sox, 2011). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Hospital leaders are being challenged to become more consumer-oriented, more interprofessional in their approach to care and more focused on outcome measures and continuous quality improvement. The concept of the learning organization could provide the conceptual framework necessary for understanding and addressing these various challenges in a systematic way. The paper aims to discuss these issues. A scan of the literature reveals that this concept has been applied to hospitals and other health care institutions, but it is not known to what extent this concept has been linked to hospitals and with what outcomes. To bridge this gap, the question of whether learning organizations are the answer to improving hospital care needs to be considered. Hospitals are knowledge-intensive organizations in that there is a need for constant updating of the best available evidence and the latest medical techniques. It is widely acknowledged that learning may become the only sustainable competitive advantage for organizations, including hospitals. With the increased demand for accountability for quality care, fiscal responsibility and positive patient outcomes, exploring hospitals as learning organizations is timely and highly relevant to senior hospital administrators responsible for integrating best practices, interprofessional care and quality improvement as a primary means of achieving these outcomes. To date, there is a dearth of research on hospitals as learning organizations as it relates to improving hospital care.
    Journal of Health Organisation and Management 11/2014; 28(6):830-838. DOI:10.1108/JHOM-10-2013-0229 · 0.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "To standardize IPE, it is important to accredit the course. There are no specific bodies or institutions to accredit such courses yet [36], [39]. This makes IPE seem to be just an additional requirement rather than a serious course for participants [62]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Evidence is available on the potential efficacy of interprofessional education (IPE) to foster interprofessional cooperation, improve professional satisfaction, and improve patient care. While the intention of the World Health Organization (WHO) is to implement IPE in all countries, evidence comes from developed countries about its efficiency, challenges, and barriers to planning and implementing IPE. We therefore conducted this review to examine challenges of implementing IPE to suggest possible pathways to overcome the anticipated challenges in developing countries. We searched for literatures on IPE in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases. We examined challenges or barriers and initiatives to overcome them so as to suggest methods to solve the anticipated challenges in developing countries. We could not conduct a meta-analysis because of the qualitative nature of the research question and the data; instead we conducted a meta-narrative of evidence. A total of 40 out of 2,146 articles were eligible for analyses in the current review. Only two articles were available from developing countries. Despite the known benefits of IPE, a total of ten challenges or barriers were common based on the retrieved evidence. They included curriculum, leadership, resources, stereotypes and attitudes, variety of students, IPE concept, teaching, enthusiasm, professional jargons, and accreditation. Out of ten, three had already been reported in developing countries: IPE curriculum, resource limitations, and stereotypes. This study found ten important challenges on implementing IPE. They are curriculum, leadership, resources, stereotypes, students' diversity, IPE concept, teaching, enthusiasm, professional jargons, and accreditation. Although only three of them are already experienced in developing countries, the remaining seven are potentially important for developing countries, too. By knowing these challenges and barriers in advance, those who implement IPE programs in developing countries will be much more prepared, and can enhance the program's potential success.
    PLoS ONE 05/2014; 9(5):e96724. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0096724 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "The benefits of IPE amongst health professionals are well documented (Barr, Koppel, Reeves, Hammick, & Freeth, 2005) and there is evidence of the positive effects of IPE on healthcare outcomes (Reeves et al., 2013). However, while several requirements have been identified as essential for the successful implementation of IPE, including support and budgetary resources, creation of an academic calendar and a requirement for the participation of all healthcare programs (Aston et al., 2012), implementation of IPE remains an activity where local contextual differences result in a poor idea of the width of implementation issues which may affect the successful adoption of this type of education. This report describes the development and content of such initiatives in the early stages of development at the University of California, Davis (UCD). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The benefits of interprofessional education (IPE) amongst health professionals are well documented, however, the implementation of interprofessional initiatives across the USA is inconsistent. This report describes the development and content of a number of IPE initiatives that are in the early stages of development and implementation at the University of California, Davis, USA. The article describes several important factors that were found to be necessary for the initial implementation of these IPE initiatives. Evaluation data from these initiatives, which is providing a range of positive outcomes, are also presented and discussed in relation to the wider IPE literature.
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 11/2013; 28(2). DOI:10.3109/13561820.2013.851071 · 1.40 Impact Factor
Show more