Interprofessional Health Education
Curriculum Instructor’s Guide
University of California – San Francisco
Prepared by:
Peter Colley – School of Pharmacy
Jennifer Cai – School of Dentistry
Maura Purcell – School of Nursing
Asya Ofshteyn – School of Medicine
1
Table of Contents
Title:
Page
Team Members, Mentors, and Contributors
Files Included in this Resource
3
4
Background Information
5
Brief Description of Resource
6
Detailed Curriculum Description and Session Breakdown
7
Assessment and Evaluations Overview
12
Implementation and Limitations
13
References
15
2
UCSF IPE 2011- 2012 Curriculum
Team Members and Acknowledgements
Student Team Members:
Peter Colley (School of Pharmacy ‘13)
Jennifer Cai (School of Dentistry ‘14)
Asya Ofshteyn (School of Medicine ‘14)
Maura Purcell (School of Nursing ‘13)
Primary Mentor:
Renee Courey, Ph.D.
School-specific Mentors and Contributors:
Susan Hyde, DDS, MPH, PhD
Tina Brock, BSPharm, EdD
Helen Loeser, MD
Gwen Essex, RDH, EdD,
Bridget O’Brien, PhD
Jeff Kilmer
Lisa Kroon, PharmD, BCDS
Kimberly Topp, PT, PhD
Joanne Spetz, Ph.D.
Special Thanks to:
Pat O’Sullivan, MS, EdD
Sophia Saeed, DMD
Jennifer Passanisi
Susan Masters, PhD
Sharon Youmans, PharmD
Jennifer Staves
Amber Fitzsimmons, MS, DPTSc
Maureen Conway
3
Peter.Colley@ucsf.edu
Jennifer.Cai@ucsf.edu
Asya.Ofshteyn@ucsf.edu
Maura.Purcell@ucsf.edu
Files Included in this Resource
1. Day 1 Materials:
a. Hot Topic Discussion Files:
i. ACOs.doc
ii. Healthy SF.doc
iii. Insurance Reform.doc
iv. Provider Shortages.doc
v. Sources for Hot topics.doc
b. IPEDay1Script.doc
c. Day 1 Student Folders.docx
d. Post Event Survey Day 1.doc
e. PrePost Competency Survey.docx
2. Day 2 Materials:
a. Day 2 Case_facilitator.doc
b. Day 2 Case_student.doc
c. Facilitator Training Session.ppt
d. RR_DAY_2_Survey.pdf
e. IPE Team Debrief.doc
f. Post Event Survey Day 2.doc
3. Longitudinal Project Materials:
a. Grading Sheet_Longitudinal Project.doc
b. LongtidudinalProjectGuidelines.doc
c. Post-curriculum satisfaction survey.doc
4. Additional Materials:
a. Curriculum Objective&Evaluation Map.doc
4
Background Information
In 2006, UCSF initiated an interprofessional education (IPE) curriculum for all 475 firstyear learners across the five UCSF professional programs in Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing,
Pharmacy, and Physical Therapy. Each year, the curriculum is refined by student and faculty
leaders from each program based on feedback, evaluations and IPE literature review.
Learner evaluations from the previous year’s curriculum identified several key feedback
elements that led to the development of the current resource. In both sets of evaluations from
Day 1 and Day 2, students consistently identified that having the time to interact with other
professional students was enjoyable, wanted more group discussion time, and wanted more
interactive activities such as team case studies. On Day 2, students felt speeches given by
presenters were “too long” with “too much listening.”
Beginning in 1996, Leicester/Warwick Medical School in England has been
implementing a successful IPE program in which first year students from different health
professions interview different health professionals and then collaborate to work on a patient
case1. Consistently, the Leicester students have had positive experiences with this IPE course
over 10 plus years. These students also gained an appreciation and understanding of the
importance of interprofessional health care for patient health and safety. Additionally, when
asked during the fourth year, students were able to recall details of the case. This demonstrates
that students to retained the information they learned during the IPE course over the long term.
The University of Ontario, Canada has an annual event in an auditorium similar to the
IPE Day 1 of this resource with students from 10-health profession disciplines participating2. A
student who attended the IPE event ran a study using focus groups from different disciplines to
evaluate the IPE event. The results revealed that students felt there was value to IPE and that IPE
was crucial to their education and to enable team members to work together in an effective
manner. However, students did not like the size of the event and the poor fidelity of the
interprofessional scenarios employed in the skit. Students suggested more small-group sessions,
less lecture-based learning, forming IPE as a regular longitudinal part of education, and better
integration of IPE into existing curricula.
In a review of IPE literature, Reeves et al 2007 identifies several factors in creating a
successful IPE curriculum3. These factors include the use of interactive learning methods (i.e.
group work, case studies), ensuring that IPE activities have a clear clinical focus, employing
good quality facilitators, attracting enthusiastic faculty to join the course-planning team, and
having organizational support from senior managers, administrators and faculty for
implementation.
Finally, a major component responsible to the development of this resource was the
publication of the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice released by
the Interprofessional Education Collaborative in May of 20114. In the report, experts identified
the four interprofessional core competency domains for interprofessional learning. These
domains are Values and Ethics for Interprofessional Practice, Roles and Responsibilities,
Interprofessional Communication, and Teams and Teamwork. It is from these domains that
competencies for the current curriculum were chosen.
It is the conclusions from these IPE models and previous evaluations that sparked the
development of the current resource. The IPE curriculum at the University of Ontario is very
similar to the UCSF 2010-2011 IPE events. Interestingly, these students suggested many of the
same changes as those at UCSF, leading to the development of the UCSF curriculum to include
5
more group discussion and interaction, smaller discussion sizes and a longitudinal component to
the course.
Brief Description of Resource
This IPE curriculum is based upon selected competencies from the Interprofessional
Education Collaborative (IPEC) report from May 2011. The competencies selected were
deemed appropriate and achievable for first-year learners. From these competencies, learning
objectives were created for each component of the curriculum. Furthermore, activities were
developed that would allow learners to achieve these learning objectives through attendance,
participation and interaction at planned curricular events.
The curriculum consists of three components: 2 organized half-day exercises (referred to
as Day 1 and Day 2) and a yearlong longitudinal community-based project. For each of these
components, first-year learners from each of the professional schools were divided into groups of
7 to 8 interprofessional students (referred to as “pods”), for a total of 60 interprofessional pods.
Students remained in the same pods (i.e. with the same group of students) for the entire yearlong
curriculum. Due to the differing numbers of students in each program, this allowed for 2-3
medical students, 2-3 pharmacy students, 1-2 nursing students, 1-2 dentistry students, and 0-1
physical therapy students in each group.
Day 1 occurs near the start of each program and is a 3-hour event in the gymnasium with
all first-year students, several faculty members, and other campus representatives. Day 1 focuses
on a standardized patient skit, a health policy discussion and the roles and responsibilities of the
health professions. First-year learners prepare for the event with required reading of four health
policy topics: accountable care organizations, health insurance reform, Healthy San Francisco,
and provider shortages. These topics were presented as one-page fact sheets to introduce learners
to the subject, provide context for the patient skit and generate discussion during the event.
At the end of the Day 1 presentation, the first-year learners are introduced to the
longitudinal project. The longitudinal projects are community-based projects for which
organizations and clinics around the university expressed a need for assistance. The project
guidelines require each student to commit 10 hours over the course of the year to working on the
project. During the year, students submit “check-ins” to the course website describing their
project, the roles and responsibilities of team members, and progress updates. At the end of the
year, the projects were due for upload to the course website and graded using a pre-designed
assessment rubric.
Day 2 occurs approximately three months later in small breakout rooms and focuses on a
patient case, a survey of the roles and responsibilities of health professionals, and a discussion
about each programs’ curriculum. Up to two of the interprofessional groups with a trained
facilitator are assigned to each room. The bulk of the event is dedicated to a case-based scenario
that is a continuance of the Day 1 patient case. Learners work together to prioritize the patient’s
health needs, identify professions to meet these needs, and develop a rough patient care plan.
Learners then identify and discuss barriers to interprofessional collaboration and in providing
care to the patient.
Day 1, 2 and the longitudinal project are evaluated with a post-event survey, which
includes items with Likert-scale responses and open-ended questions for comments on the best
aspect of each event and how the event could be improved in the future. The curriculum is also
evaluated with a pre- and post-curriculum competency assessment tool.
6
Detailed Curriculum Description and Session Breakdown
Longitudinal
Project Assigned
Day 1:
September
Gymnasium
Excitement
Building
• 1 week prior
to Day 1
• Groups of 8 IP
Students
Day 2: January,
Small Groups in
Breakout Rooms
Day 3: April
Longitudinal
Projects Due
• Patient Case
• Facillitated
discussion
• Health Policy
Pods
• Standardized
Patient Actress
Figure 1: Overall Curriculum Map
Overall Curriculum Competencies*
By the end of the first year of the Interprofessional Education curriculum, students should be
able to:
1. Explain the roles and responsibilities of other care providers and how the team works
together to provide care. (RR4: Roles and Responsibilities)
2. Communicate one’s roles and responsibilities clearly to other health professional
students. (RR1: Roles and Responsibilities)
3. Respect the unique differences in culture, values, roles and responsibilities and expertise
of other health professions (VE4: Values/ethics)
4. Reflect on how interprofessional collaboration can overcome challenges of
misconceptions between the professions.
5. Be receptive to and elicit opinions and ideas from members of the interprofessional
team in a patient centered fashion. (CC4: Communication)
6. Communicate information clearly to other professionals in a manner that is not
discipline specific. (CC2: Communication)
7. Engage other health professionals, appropriate to the specific care situation, in shared
patient-centered problem solving. (TT3: Teamwork)
8. Integrate the knowledge and experience of other professions to inform care decisions,
while respecting patient and community values and priorities or preferences for care.
(TT4: Teamwork)
*These competencies are adapted from the four core competency domains identified in the Core
Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice, which was issued by the
Interprofessional Education Collaborative in May 2011.
7
Excitement Building
Goals & Objectives: To introduce and generate excitement for IPE to each individual school
program. Additionally, this will be an opportunity for the first-year students to ask any questions
regarding the upcoming IPE event. Preparatory assignments are also introduced: completing an
IPE competency survey and reading health policy fact sheet on a pre-assigned hot topic.
Date: The week before Day 1
Location: In class for each professional program
Duration: 5-10 minutes
Materials Needed:
1. Pre-Assessment Survey (released online or in paper form during this session)
Suggested materials (not provided):
1. Presentation on the logistics of Day 1 events, pre-survey, purpose and objectives for IPE
IPE Day 1
Session Description Purpose:
Day 1 occurs in the Fall quarter and is a 3-hour event in the campus gymnasium with all
first-year professional students, Deans, several faculty members, and representatives from
Student Life Services. Day 1 focuses on a standardized patient monologue and skit, a health
policy discussion and the roles and responsibilities of the health professions. First-year learners
prepare in advance of the event with required reading of one of four health policy “hot topics”:
accountable care organizations, health insurance reform, Healthy San Francisco, and provider
shortages. They are then required to be the “expert” on that topic for the rest of their group.
These topics were developed into one-page fact sheets as a means to introduce learners to the
subject and to generate discussion during the event.
Day 1 begins with a standardized patient actress presenting a monologue of her struggle
with the health system. Students, arranged into pre-assigned pods of interprofessional students,
discuss the patient’s situation and how the prepared health policy topics apply to this patient.
The questions for discussion are part of the Day 1 Student Folders. After the policy discussion,
the Deans of each of the professional schools meet and interview the patient, acting in their
respective provider roles. Following this skit, the student learner pods reconvene as a team to
discuss the patient’s plan of care. The discussion questions for this component of the event are
also provided in the Day 1 Student Folders under the heading of “Team Meeting.”
At the end of the Day 1 presentation, the first-year learners are introduced to the
longitudinal project component. The longitudinal projects are community-based projects for
which organizations and clinics in the San Francisco Bay area expressed a need for assistance
from a group of interprofessional students. Examples of longitudinal projects include
development of tobacco cessation social media, needle exchange program awareness and
education materials, development of a needs-based curriculum focused on nutritional education
deficits of local high school student, and conducting a study on animal assisted therapy amongst
many others. The project guidelines require each student to commit 10 hours over the course of
the year to meeting and working on the project. Twice per quarter, the first-year learners submit
project check-ins to the course website, describing their project, roles and responsibilities of
team members, progress updates and in-turn, receive feedback. The projects are due in the
Spring quarter to the course website and are graded using a pre-designed grading sheet.
8
Session Learning Objectives:
1. Describe the roles of dentistry, medicine, pharmacy, nursing and physical therapy in
providing patient-centered and population-oriented care.
2. Engage in discussion with other health professional students on the role of the
interprofessional team in the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), with a focus on
accountable care organizations, provider shortages, health insurance reform, Healthy San
Francisco and the patient-centered Medical Home Model.
3. Explain the role of Interprofessional Health Education (IPE) in the health professional
curricula as it relates to interprofessional practice in the health system workforce.
Date: 1st quarter/semester of first-year
Location: Gymnasium, large auditorium, outdoor seating space
Duration: 2.5 hours
Materials Needed:
1. Hot Topic Files (released online in advance of the event)
a. ACOs.doc
b. Healthy SF.doc
c. Insurance Reform.doc
d. Provider Shortages.doc
e. Sources for Hot topics.doc
2. IPHEDay1Script.doc
 The script is released to the standardized patient (SP) actress in advance of the
event. A 1 to 2-hour meeting should be set up prior to the event with the SP to
discuss any concerns. The providers in the script can be played by anyone, but a
meeting should be set up before the event in order to discuss the roles.
3. Day 1 Student Folders.docx
 These are set out on students’ chairs on the day of the event. The folders provide
discussion questions for the Hot Topics, Icebreakers, a team contact information
sheet, and post-skit discussion questions. One folder is sufficient for a group of 8
students.
4. Post Event Survey Day 1.doc
 The survey should be distributed with the student folders. The surveys should be
filled out and collected at the end of the event. There should be enough
evaluations for each student in the group.
5. LongitudinalProjectGuidelines (released online)
6. Grading Sheet Longitudinal Project (released online)
Suggested Materials (not provided)
1. Presentation containing the schedule and discussion questions in the order they occur to
help time the event. This presentation may also contain information on the longitudinal
project component at the end of the event.
9
Sample Schedule of Day 1 Activities:
Time
Activity
Students Arrive and Eat
12:15 - 12:45
Duration
30 min
12:45 - 12:50
Introductions
5 min
12:50 - 1:00
1:00 - 1:10
Ice Breakers
Keynote Speech
10 min
10 min
1:10 - 1:20
Patient Presentation
10 min
1:20 - 1:45
Health Policy Group Discussion
25 min
1:45 - 2:05
Dean’s Roles and Responsibilities Skit
20 min
2:05 - 2:35
Team Meeting Group Discussion
30 min
2:35 - 3:00
Closing Remarks
Introduction to Longitudinal Project
Post-event Evaluations
20 min
Longitudinal Project
The Longitudinal Project is introduced during the Day 1 activity. Students are then given 1-2
days to choose their projects and bid for their top choices on the course website. Wellcircumscribed practical projects are arranged with community and campus organizations one to
two months in advance, to make sure that students are filling an unmet need within the
community. Quarterly office hours are held to support student teams throughout the year.
Completed projects are graded at the end of the year with a pre-released rubric and the top three
projects are awarded prizes including a letter of commendation from the schools’ deans.
Project Learning Objectives:
1. Integrate knowledge and experience of other health professions and collaborate with a
team of health professional students on a project of their choosing.
2. Communicate, organize and listen actively with a team of health professional students.
3. Describe the roles of dentistry, medicine, pharmacy, nursing and physical therapy in
providing patient-centered and population-oriented care.
Materials Needed:
1. LongitudinalProjectGuidelines.doc
2. Grading Sheet_Longitudinal Project.docx
IPHE Day 2
Session Description:
Day 2 occurs during the winter quarter and focuses on a patient case discussion in small
breakout rooms throughout the campus. One or two longitudinal project teams are assigned to a
room with a facilitator. At the start of the event, students introduce themselves and discuss with
each other their current curricula and the coursework they look forward to in the future.
Following this discussion, students complete a short roles and responsibilities survey adapted
10
from an exercise created by the Wisconsin Area Health Education Center. The survey instructs
students to indicate with a check mark which profession(s) perform(s) common patient care
activities. The learners review their answers and discuss any differences arising from this roles
and responsibilities exercise. This activity leads into a case-based scenario that is a continuance
of the Day 1 patient case. The case is reintroduced to the learners who then work together to
prioritize the patient’s health needs, identify professions who can meet these needs, and develop
a rough patient care plan. Learners then identify and discuss barriers to interprofessional
collaboration at their institution and in providing care to this patient, and brainstorm how the
curricula need to change in order to prepare them to work with this patient as a team. The day
closes with a team-debriefing discussion of their progress on their longitudinal projects and
completion of the Day 2 survey.
Session Learning Objectives:
● Practice being receptive to and eliciting opinions from members of the
interprofessional team in a patient-centered fashion.
● Work with other health professional students to create a comprehensive care plan for a
patient.
● Communicate information, one’s professional identity, unique skills and opinions in a
manner that is patient-centered, not discipline specific and engages the interprofessional
team.
● Describe how other health professional school curricula complement and differ from
each other, in relation to how these professions can work together as an interdisciplinary
team in practice.
Dates: 2-3 months post Day 2 during first-year
Location: ~40 Breakout rooms throughout campus
Duration: 2 hours
Materials Needed:
1. Day 2 Case_facilitator.doc
2. Day 2 Case_student.doc
 The case is released online prior to the event to the students. No preparatory work
is needed, but students are only asked to bring a copy to the event with them.
3. Facilitator Training Session.ppt
 A call for facilitators should be sent 4-6 weeks before the event. Facilitators can
be clinical (ideally) or non-clinical faculty or upper level professional students.
Facilitators should be trained prior to the event to understand the purpose of the
event and to walk through the activities.
4. RR_DAY_2_Survey.pdf
 This survey is released to the students prior to the event. Students are asked to fill
out the survey on their own prior to the event. During the event students will
work with their group members to discuss any differences they found in their
answers.
5. IPE Team Debrief.doc
 This worksheet is provided to the facilitator prior to the event. One worksheet per
group is sufficient. The purpose of this worksheet is for the groups to discuss
progress and issues related to their longitudinal projects.
11
6. Post Event Survey Day 2.doc
 Surveys are given to the facilitators before the event, enough for the number of
students in each room. Surveys should be filled out and collected at the end of the
event.
Suggested Materials (not provided)
1. Compiled packets of the above materials for facilitators.
Sample Schedule of Activities:
1:00 pm
Arrival and Introductions
1:15 pm
Roles and Responsibilities (RR) Activity (15 minutes)
1:30 pm
Discussion of School Curricula (15 minutes)
1:35 pm
Patient Case: Irene P Hendricks-Eagan (1 hour)
2:40 pm
Wrap-up, Team Debrief and Discussion
2:50 pm
Day 2 Evaluations
3:00 pm
Students dismissed, rooms reserved until 4pm for project work
Assessment and Evaluations
Evaluation plan:
1. Pre- and Post-competency survey
a. Competency survey
i.
Developed from IPEC 2011 Competencies
ii. Previous tools used*
1. RIPLS (Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale)
2. IEPS (Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale)
b. Roles and responsibilities survey
2. Satisfaction Surveys
a. Post-Day 1
b. Post-Day 2
c. Post-Curriculum and Longitudinal Project – released online post-curriculum
*Previous iterations of this IPE curricula measured outcomes using the Readiness of
Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception scale
(IEPS). These survey tools did not possess the discriminative properties necessary to detect
learner outcomes, as students scored high pre-curriculum and scored at the same level or less
post-curriculum (ceiling effect)5.
12
Implementation and Lessons Learned
This curriculum was successfully implemented during the 2011-12 academic year with
475 first-year professional students at the University of California – San Francisco. The student
body included approximately 88 students from the School of Dentistry, 151 students from the
School of Medicine, 78 students from the School of Nursing, 123 students from the School of
Pharmacy, and 36 students from the Program for Physical Therapy. The IPE curriculum was
designated as a required pass/non-pass component of existing coursework specific to each
professional program with direct consequences for non-attendance. This change was
implemented to discourage students from missing the events, a problem that existed in the past.
Attendance for Day 1 was done with ID swipes and iPads with the help of the Office of Career
and Professional Development. Aside from a few unavoidable absences (family emergencies,
etc.), attendance was 100%. Student life services also organized a social event after Day 1 that
included free pizza and beer that helped to encourage socialization amongst the students.
Learner feedback from the post-Day 1 event surveys (N = 434, 91% response rate)
showed that 80% agreed the interactive patient case scenario enacted by the Deans and
standardized patient expanded learner understanding of the roles and responsibilities of the
health professions. 88% of learners agreed that the health policy topics discussed were
interesting. Furthermore, 77% of learners agreed that Day 1 was an effective session overall and
78% of learners agreed that Day 1 complemented their education.
Learner feedback from the post-Day 2 event surveys (N = 430, 90% response rate)
showed that 89% of students agreed the patient case required the perspective of all group
members. 81% of students agreed that working with a team on a patient case was useful to their
education and 92% agreed that the small group discussion setting helped students to engage with
others effectively. There was greater variation in response to the amount of time allocated to
each activity, with several commenting more time should be allocated to discussing each other’s
curricula. 86% of students agreed (50% strongly agreed) that the discussion of other school’s
curricula was useful in showing students what other health professionals learn. In fact, in the
free response section of the survey, this activity was identified by many as one of the best aspects
of the event. Finally, 73% of learners agreed that the IPE Day 2 experience complemented their
professional education and 75% felt overall it was an effective session.
Learners enjoyed Day 1 and Day 2, but especially enjoyed Day 2 more due to the small
group nature. Students especially enjoyed the use of a standardized patient on Day 1 and the use
of a paper case on Day 2. Providing free food continues to be a request from the learners.
Facilitators overall enjoyed Day 2, although there was discussion of the time constraints
of activities and not having enough time to completely delve into each activity. It was suggested
that instead of completing all Day 2 activities to have a “menu” where students could choose
which activities they would prefer to tackle.
The analysis of the pre- and post-assessment survey showed that learners moved closer
toward achievement of the interprofessional competencies chosen from the IPEC 2011 report.
Variations in the competencies achieved were noted between programs. Improvement in
competencies was defined to be a positive change of greater than 5% in students’ level of
agreement to survey items between the pre- and post-survey. A more detailed statistical analysis
on the effectiveness and significance of this pre- and post-survey tool is forthcoming.
Medical students (N = 33, 21% response rate) showed improvement in the IPEC
competency domains of communication, roles and responsibilities and teamwork. These items
related to learners’ ability to describe the roles and responsibilities of the interprofessional team,
13
integrating knowledge of other health professions to inform care decisions, and communicating a
clear message to other professionals without using profession-specific language.
Masters Entry Program in Nursing (MEPN) students (N = 21, 26% response rate) showed
improvement in the IPEC competency domains of communication, roles and responsibilities and
teamwork. These items related to competencies of learners to describe the roles and
responsibilities of the interprofessional team, being cognizant of their use of profession-specific
terminology, and the importance of working as an interprofessional team.
Physical therapy students (N = 7, 19% response rate) showed improvement in the IPEC
competency domains of roles and responsibilities, values and ethics, and teamwork. These items
related to learners’ ability to describe the roles and responsibilities of members of the
interprofessional team and their ability to integrate knowledge of other health professionals to
inform care decisions.
Improvement in the IPEC competency domains for pharmacy and dental students was
less pronounced than the other three professions. Interestingly at the time of the post-survey,
dental students (N = 12, 13% response rate) agreed more with the statement that their
contributions are valuable to the interprofessional team, yet agreed less with statements related to
the necessity of working as an interprofessional team and understanding the importance of
building relationships with other professions. Pharmacy students (N = 27, 21% response rate)
improved on items related to students’ ability to describe the roles and responsibilities of the
interprofessional team. However, these learners scored similarly to dental students on the
remaining items.
Overall, there was little or negative change in many of the items related to the Values and
Ethics competencies across all the professions. This negative change may be due to recency
effects (i.e. the post-survey was sent approximately 7 months after Day 1 and 4 months after Day
2) and the fact that the survey was linked to the learner evaluation of the longitudinal project, a
component of the curriculum where students showed the most dissatisfaction.
These results give usable data to further improve the curriculum in future years that was
not possible when using the RIPLS and IEPS surveys. Specifically, the curriculum can be altered
to better focus on the competencies related to the Values and Ethics domain. The difference in
which profession improved in which competencies may be a result of culture differences within
each profession and perceived differences in the amount of interprofessional collaboration that
occurs in practice for each profession. In other words, learners may perceive that some
professions may require more interprofessional collaboration than others.
Several lessons were learned during the implementation of this curriculum. It is
important to have support and leadership from faculty in each profession that is to participate in
the curriculum. Furthermore, it is important to have upper level students from each professional
school participate in the development, planning and implementation of the curriculum. Students
often have strong opinions of IPE and are essential in working out the feasibility and logistics of
the events.
Due to the electronic nature of the pre- and post-assessment survey, responses were
limited. Approximately 20% of the student body was included in the analysis after matching pre
and post-survey responses. The overall small size included in the analysis is a major limitation to
showing efficacy of the tool. In the future, using approximately 15 minutes of class time in each
program to distribute a paper form of the assessment would yield more data. The time span
between administration of the pre- and post-survey was fairly large (approximately 7 months) in
relation to the length of the curriculum. In the future, releasing the post survey closer to the Day
14
2 exercise may lead to more significant results, as students will have a better memory of the
activities. Despite the low yield, these results allow future developments to the curriculum and
help to outline specific goals for improvement, a fact that the RIPLS and IEPS used in previous
years could not provide.
The longitudinal project evaluation data showed mixed results. For the most part,
learners liked being in the same small group of students throughout the curriculum, as it provided
continuity. While overall learners performed well on the longitudinal project, the appeal of the
project was fairly low due primarily to difficulty in finding common times for the group
members to meet. Many students set up online methods of collaboration, such as Google
documents, to complete their projects instead of meeting in person. Furthermore, since the
projects ranged from different community organizations to university faculty-mentored projects,
there was a large difference in the quality of mentorship provided. Those projects with faculty
members as mentors performed better overall.
The project has since been repurposed as a different longitudinal activity that still spans
the entire year, but with a unified topic in an area of university emphasis and with dedicated
group meeting times.
References
1. Anderson, Elizabeth, and AngelaLennox. "The Leicester Model of Interprofessional
education: developing, delivering and learning from student voices for 10 years." Journal
of interprofessional care 23.6 (2009): 557-73.
2. Rosenfield, Daniel, Ivy Oandasan, and Scott Reeves. "Perceptions versus reality: a
qualitative study of students." Medical education 45.5 (2011): 471-7.
3. Reeves, Scott, Joanne Goldman, and Ivy Oandasan. "Key factors in planning and
implementing interprofessional education in health care settings." Journal of allied health
36.4 (2007): 231-‐ 5.
4. Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. (2011). Core competencies
for interprofessional collaborative practice: Report of an expert panel. Washington,
D.C.: Interprofessional Education Collaborative.
5. Fitzsimmons A, Courey R, Cisneros B, et al. “An Interprofessional Healthcare
Education Learner Developed and Centered Curriculum.” AAMC Western Regional
Conference, Stanford University School of Medicine. 2 May 2011. Small Group
Presentation.
15