Perspectives on Interprofessional Education: Students and Faculty Weigh In

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to better understand faculty and student perspectives on interprofessional education (IPE). Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions: (1) How is interprofessional education defined by faculty and students enrolled in graduate health care curricula? (2) What are the attitudes of, supports for, and barriers to interprofessional education among faculty and students enrolled in graduate health care curricula?

An evolving health care system with emphasis on value-based services and improved outcomes necessitates that occupational therapy become fully immersed in interprofessional practice (IPP). Interprofessional practice begins in academic programs with IPE. Much of the existing literature concentrates on students’ perspectives of IPE. Student reports provide necessary insight into IPE, but without information from faculty, only half of the story is being told. In order to develop effective IPE efforts that carry over into effective IPP, we must conduct further research that more conclusively determines best practices in this area.

DESIGN: This study used a two-phase mixed-methods design. The sample consisted of students and faculty at a private, nonprofit university in the southeastern United States. There were 83 participants (73 students, 10 faculty) in Phase 1 of the study and 353 participants (298 students, 55 faculty) in Phase 2. All students and faculty were eligible as long as they were able to understand and speak English, had access to the Internet, and were currently enrolled or teaching in one of nine health profession colleges.

Phase 1 consisted of face-to-face interviews to gather qualitative responses to the question, “What is your definition of interprofessional education?” Responses were audiotaped. The purpose of this phase was to capture students’ and faculty’s spontaneous and unfiltered definitions of IPE. In Phase 2, an electronic survey gathered quantitative data regarding faculty’s and students’ perceptions of and attitudes toward IPE. The secure online Opinio survey (ObjectPlanet, Oslo, Norway) used in this study was adapted from the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale and the Interprofessional Education Perception Scale; both capture responses on a Likert scale.

RESULTS: The audiotaped responses from the interviews were coded and the following themes emerged: (1) role identification and perspective taking, (2) putting the client first, (3) the real world, (4) learning with and from different health care professions, and (5) intentional IPE. In addition, 9.6% of respondents indicated that they were “not sure” or had “no idea” how they would define IPE.

Quantitative results were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 23. Cross-tabulations determined relationships between respondent characteristics and groupings and response patterns. More than 80% of faculty and students agreed that IPE can increase positive perceptions about other health care professions. Statistically significant differences between occupational therapy and osteopathic medicine (DO) students were found on 15 of the 19 survey items, reflecting that the DO students had a much less favorable view of IPE than occupational therapy student participants. Additionally, student versus faculty perceptions of supports and barriers differed.

CONCLUSION: In concert with the Triple Aim and interest in collaborative care, occupational therapists have a unique role in paving the way to create and foster interprofessional environments. As a new generation of students enter the health care arena, it is crucial to understand the perceptions toward IPE in graduate health care curricula. More effective IPE can better equip students to become leaders in IPP and work together to maximize health care outcomes including quality of life for clients and families.

References

Earnest, M., & Brandt, B. (2014). Aligning practice redesign and interprofessional education to advance Triple Aim outcomes. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28, 497–500. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.933650

Forte, A., & Fowler, P. (2009). Participation in interprofessional education: An evaluation of student and staff experiences. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 23, 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820802551874

Lawlis, T. R., Anson, J., & Greenfield, D. (2014). Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: A literature review. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 28, 305–310. https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.895977

Slater, B. L., Lawton, R., Armitage, G., Bibby, J., & Wright, J. (2012). Training and action for patient safety: Embedding interprofessional education for patient safety within an improvement methodology. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32, 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.21130