Interprofessional Education Implementation in Occupational Therapy and the Health Sciences

PURPOSE: Integration of interprofessional education (IPE) at the student level is necessary to ensure an understanding of integrated health care, and many academic programs are required to include IPE to meet accreditation standards. The implementation of IPE to date is based on trial and error, student satisfaction assessments, and case studies. The purpose of this study is to assess IPE programming in occupational therapy (OT) education based on students’ and professionals’ perceptions of current initiatives and activities.

DESIGN: A mixed design was used that included an online survey and focused interviews. A quantitative, nonexperimental descriptive web-based survey was used to assess IPE formats and the best time to implement IPE. Descriptive qualitative interviews were used to interview faculty regarding their personal experience with IPE and their opinion of the quality of that education. Emails were sent to 1,063 OT faculty nationwide and 268 OT students to recruit a sample of participants for the web-based survey. A purposive sample was collected for the qualitative interviews.

METHOD: A web-based survey on SurveyMonkey (San Mateo, CA) was used to gather the opinions of students and faculty regarding IPE formats and the best time to implement IPE. Demographic information was obtained. The second section of the survey consisted of five questions, each with a five-point Likert scale, intended to measure the favorability of differing IPE formats. The survey also contained one closed-ended question to determine the best time to implement IEP programming as perceived by the participants. Data from the survey were exported to IBM SPSS Statistics Version 21.0 for analysis. Semistructured questions were used to interview faculty regarding their personal experience with IPE and their opinion of the quality of that education. Interview transcripts and field notes were analyzed using content analysis. Each researcher analyzed and categorized the interview data separately, then the researchers convened to achieve consensus.

RESULTS: Results from the survey revealed that respondents perceived that case conference and direct patient care are the most effective methods of IPE. Statistically significant differences were found between students and professionals in the delivery of IPE for seminar-based, classroom, and time to implement activities. A plurality of students (48%) articulated that IPE should be implemented during undergraduate classes, and a majority of professionals (73%) identified that IPE should be implemented during graduate courses. Our findings are consistent with the literature, which revealed that fieldwork and pregraduation are the best times to implement IPE.

A thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews revealed three themes: (1) Value of IPE, (2) Time Barrier, and (3) Resistance. Value of IPE refers to positive attitudes regarding IPE activities in addition to appreciation of knowledge gained through these activities. Time Barrier refers to the recognition that IPE activities require an investment of time beyond regular academic requirements. Resistance refers to the perception that some faculty are resistant to engage and collaborate in IPE because they do not believe it is worth the effort and time commitment it requires. While all interviewees recognized the value of IPE, considerable barriers exist to implementation, which can affect the choice of IPE approach or inclusion.

CONCLUSION: Students may recognize the need to be prepared for interprofessional teamwork prior to professional practice. The disconnection between students and instructors may impact implementation of IPE during practice. Recognizing the value IPE holds for faculty and some of the identified barriers to implementation, it is imperative to offer suggestions to reduce resistance and increase faculty support.