Shared Vision

Interprofessional collaboration: three best practice models of interprofessional education Diane R. Bridges, MSN, RN, CCM1*, Richard A. Davidson, MD, MPH2, Peggy Soule Odegard, PharmD, BCPS, CDE, FASCP3, Ian V. Maki, MPH3 and John Tomkowiak, MD, MOL4

1Department of Interprofessional Healthcare Studies, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, IL, USA; 2Office of Interprofessional Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; 3Office of the Dean-Regional Affairs, UW School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA; 4Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, IL, USA

Interprofessional education is a collaborative approach to develop healthcare students as future

interprofessional team members and a recommendation suggested by the Institute of Medicine. Complex

medical issues can be best addressed by interprofessional teams. Training future healthcare providers to work

in such teams will help facilitate this model resulting in improved healthcare outcomes for patients. In

this paper, three universities, the Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, the University of

Florida and the University of Washington describe their training curricula models of collaborative and

interprofessional education.

The models represent a didactic program, a community-based experience and an interprofessional-simulation

experience. The didactic program emphasizes interprofessional team building skills, knowledge of professions,

patient centered care, service learning, the impact of culture on healthcare delivery and an interprofessional

clinical component. The community-based experience demonstrates how interprofessional collaborations

provide service to patients and how the environment and availability of resources impact one’s health status.

The interprofessional-simulation experience describes clinical team skills training in both formative and

summative simulations used to develop skills in communication and leadership.

One common theme leading to a successful experience among these three interprofessional models included

helping students to understand their own professional identity while gaining an understanding of other

professional’s roles on the health care team. Commitment from departments and colleges, diverse calendar

agreements, curricular mapping, mentor and faculty training, a sense of community, adequate physical space,

technology, and community relationships were all identified as critical resources for a successful program.

Summary recommendations for best practices included the need for administrative support, interprofessional

programmatic infrastructure, committed faculty, and the recognition of student participation as key

components to success for anyone developing an IPE centered program.

Keywords: interprofessional; healthcare teams; collaboration; interprofessional education; interprofessional curricula models

Received: 25 January 2011; Revised: 25 March 2011; Accepted: 3 March 2011; Published: 8 April 2011

T oday’s patients have complex health needs and

typically require more than one discipline to

address issues regarding their health status (1).

In 2001 a recommendation by the Institute of Medicine

Committee on Quality of Health Care in America

suggested that healthcare professionals working in

interprofessional teams can best communicate and ad-

dress these complex and challenging needs (1, 2). This

interprofessional approach may allow sharing of exper-

tise and perspectives to form a common goal of restoring

or maintaining an individual’s health and improving

outcomes while combining resources (1, 3).

Interprofessional education (IPE) is an approach to

develop healthcare students for future interprofessional

teams. Students trained using an IPE approach are more

likely to become collaborative interprofessional team

(page number not for citation purpose)

�TREND ARTICLE

Medical Education Online 2011. # 2011 Diane R. Bridges et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

1

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035

members who show respect and positive attitudes towards

each other and work towards improving patient outcomes

(3�5).

What is interprofessional collaboration and practice? According to the Canadian Interprofessional Health

Collaborative, interprofessional collaboration is a ‘part-

nership between a team of health providers and a client in

a participatory collaborative and coordinated approach

to shared decision making around health and social

issues’ (6). Interprofessional collaborative practice has

been defined as a process which includes communication

and decision-making, enabling a synergistic influence of

grouped knowledge and skills (7). Elements of collabora-

tive practice include responsibility, accountability, coor-

dination, communication, cooperation, assertiveness,

autonomy, and mutual trust and respect (7). It is this

partnership that creates an interprofessional team de-

signed to work on common goals to improve patient

outcomes. Collaborative interactions exhibit a blending

of professional cultures and are achieved though sharing

skills and knowledge to improve the quality of patient

care (8, 9).

There are important characteristics that determine

team effectiveness, including members seeing their roles

as important to the team, open communication, the

existence of autonomy, and equality of resources (9). It is

important to note that poor interprofessional collabora-

tion can have a negative impact on the quality of patient

care (10). Thus skills in working as an interprofessional

team, gained through interprofessional education, are

important for high-quality care.

What is interprofessional education? IPE has been defined as ‘members or students of two or

more professions associated with health or social care,

engaged in learning with, from and about each other’

(4, 11). IPE provides an ability to share skills and

knowledge between professions and allows for a better

understanding, shared values, and respect for the roles of

other healthcare professionals (5, 11, 12). Casto et al.

described the importance of developing early IPE

curricula and offering them before students begin to

practice in order to build a basic value of working within

interprofessional teams (13, 14). The desired end result is

to develop an interprofessional, team-based, collabora-

tive approach that improves patient outcomes and the

quality of care (5, 15).

In this paper we showcase three exemplary models of

collaborative and interprofessional educational experi-

ences so that other institutions may benefit from these

when creating interprofessional curricula.

Models of interprofessional collaborative student experiences

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and

Science: HMTD 500 Interprofessional Healthcare

Teams course Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and

Science (RFUMS) has responded to the challenge of

interprofessional training by designing a one-credit-hour,

pass/fail course called HMTD 500: Interprofessional

Healthcare Teams (2, 16). The course is a required

experiential learning opportunity where students interact

in interprofessional healthcare teams. Students focus on

a collaborative approach to patient-centered care, with

emphasis on team interaction, communication, service

learning, evidence-based practice, and quality improve-

ment.

The course, which was instituted in 2004, spans the

months of August�March every year, and has evolved into three separate components each with its own course

director: a required didactic component (Table 1), a

required service learning component, and a clinical

component with limited enrollment.

During the course, all first-year students (approxi-

mately 480) are grouped into 16-member interprofessional

teams. Each team has student representation from allo-

pathic and podiatric medicine, clinical laboratory, medical

radiation physic, nurse anesthetists, pathologists’ assis-

tants, psychology, and physician assistants. Each team has

a faculty or staff member, with a minimum of a master’s

degree, serving as a mentor. Mentors are trained prior to

each class, and the lunch hour of every class day is set

aside for mentors to review material and ask questions if

necessary.

Didactic component

During the didactic phase, students attend nine 90-

minute interprofessional small group sessions, currently

held every Wednesday afternoon. Five sessions are

Table 1. RFUMS HMTD 500 interprofessional healthcare

teams course objectives

1. Demonstrate collaborative interprofessional team character-

istics and behavior

2. Analyze a healthcare interaction for qualities of patient-

centered care 3. Reflect on service learning as a way to demonstrate social

responsibility

3. Identify other healthcare providers that may be of benefit to a particular patient

4. Analyze a medical error situation to formulate a suggestion

for solving the problem

5. Identify situations in which individual, institution, or govern- ment advocacy may be appropriate

6. Discuss current issues that impact all healthcare professions

Diane R. Bridges et al.

2 (page number not for citation purpose)

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035

devoted to the learning concepts of interprofessional

healthcare teams, collaborative patient-centered care

(functioning as a collaborative team), service learning

and county health assessment, healthcare professions (a

time to learn about their own health profession), and

error cases and advocacy.

The remaining sessions are set aside for discussion,

preparation, presentations, and celebrations of achieve-

ments. Student objectives, case studies, and role-play are

used to develop discussion. Two different students

volunteer each session to moderate the class to develop

their own leadership and communication skills. All

course materials are loaded into our information man-

agement learning system.

Service learning component

Students are tasked with working as an interprofessional

team to identify a community partner and engage in a

community service project. Each team is expected to

perform a service learning project. One of the original

five sessions is designed to allow students time together to

discuss ideas for their projects. Students assess local

community needs in their didactic phase and are given a

list of community projects performed in the past to help

them decide on a project and partner. Two additional

sessions allow them to plan their projects and subse-

quently design a poster which showcases their service

learning experience and reflection. The focus of student

projects is prevention education in the form of physical

fitness training, nutrition education, health screening, or

instruction in making healthy choices.

Service learning allots time for students to process what

they learned about their community: how their knowl-

edge was used to help meet the needs of the community

and how they better understand them as a result of this

activity (17). All HMTD 500 students complete a

reflection form.

The last session of the course culminates each year with

a group reflection and a celebration poster day where our

community partners are invited to visit the university to

review the work our students have accomplished. Com-

munity partners see posters created by each team and are

invited to join their student groups to reflect upon the

service learning project and share with the students how

the project impacted their organization.

The collaborative interprofessional prevention educa-

tion service learning projects have been very rewarding

and well accepted by our community partners and

students, as noted by student surveys and focus groups

and awards received from some community partners.

Student attitudes were positive regarding this aspect of

the course. Post-course survey indicated a majority of

respondents agreed or strongly agreed with statements

regarding collaboration, teamwork, social responsibility,

and diversity (18).

Clinical component

The third component is a clinical experience offered to

interested students. Three students from different profes-

sional programs such as physician assistant, physical

therapy, and podiatry form an interprofessional team and

attend four sessions at a clinical site. This helps put their

didactic knowledge into actual patient care practice.

Approximately four teams are created: as more clinical

sites agree to accept students, more groups will be formed

each year (Table 2).

Phase II � HMTD 501 Culture in Healthcare RFUMS promotes teaching students the importance of

the impact of culture on healthcare and its delivery. A

second one-credit course entitled HMTD 501 Culture

in Healthcare was developed to accomplish this goal

(Table 3). Students remain in their same HMTD 500

interprofessional groups, and class sessions for this

course are interwoven with the HMTD 500 course dates.

There are two main projects in this course: the proposal

of an education tool and performing a patient interview.

To complete the education tool assignment students

work in interprofessional teams within each group to

present a proposal summary for a culturally appropriate

patient education tool. Students identify a specific health

Table 2. RFUMS clinical component sessions

Session 1 (two hours) The assigned groups of students attend a two-hour session to

observe patients at the clinic, have an interprofessional

discussion after each, and choose one patient to follow Session 2 (one hour) Each group of students meets to discuss the patient history and

their responses to the five interprofessional questions dis- cussed in the clinic

1. How will medicine, physical therapy, physician assistant

practice, and podiatric medicine contribute to the care of

this patient? 2. What would the treatment objectives be for that care?

3. How would your profession address these objectives?

What is the evidence to support the methods used to

address the issue? 4. Besides medicine, physical therapy, physician assistant

practice, and podiatric medicine, which other professions

would you collaborate with to assist this patient? What is your rationale for these collaborations?

5. What other information will you need from the patient and

how will it guide the treatment?

Session 3 (30�60 minutes) Each group of students returns to the clinic for a follow-up

appointment with the chosen patient

Session 4 (one hour) All four groups of students meet over lunch with the three course

coordinators and present their patient and responses to the

interprofessional questions: due to available sites to perform

this clinical component, enrollment is currently limited, but we

are actively seeking additional clinical sites so we can eventually offer this experience to all students

Models of interprofessional education

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035 3 (page number not for citation purpose)

conditions impacted by cultural beliefs and practices for a

selected target group. They are asked to recognize the role

that culture plays in health beliefs and practices and the

specific impact culture has on health outcomes. Students

propose patient educational materials for the prevalent

identified health conditions for the selected target group.

They then present their proposals to their peers.

To complete the patient interview, student groups

(including third-and fourth-year students who are in

their clinical years) work with facilitators for a class

session (trained interpreters and nurse anesthesia stu-

dents). The university community volunteers as patients.

The scenario of a patient with a ‘pre-diabetes’ condition

is used for the interview. Students are asked to discuss

laboratory findings, collect historical and lifestyle infor-

mation, and elicit a cultural history. Students then have a

post-interview reflection assessment with their mentors to

discuss their communication and cultural sensitivity skills

and to identify best approaches for culturally sensitive

and appropriate patient interactions.

At the end of each HMTD 500 and 501 course, focus

group meetings are held with mentors and another with

students to obtain feedback. Changes are made to the

curriculum for improvement based on this. Student focus

groups yielded positive comments that working in small

groups promotes teamwork and teaches them about the

communication process (18).

University of Florida Interdisciplinary Family Health

The Interdisciplinary Family Health (IFH) course has

been providing interprofessional community-based learn-

ing experiences for over 10 years. Based in the Office of

Interprofessional Education within the Office of the

Senior Vice-President for Health Affairs, it is a required

course for all first-year students in the Colleges of

Medicine, Dentistry, and Pharmacy, the accelerated and

traditional nursing students in the College of Nursing,

the physical therapy and clinical and health psychology

students from the College of Public Health and Health

Professions, and the nutrition graduate students from the

Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences. Students

from the College of Veterinary Medicine participate as

volunteers (19). A core faculty representing each of the

involved Health Science Center colleges helps set policy

for the course. Grading of the course is centralized, but

the grading status of the course is determined by each

college. In dentistry and pharmacy the course is part of a

larger first-year course in terms of credit. In the Colleges

of Medicine and Nursing it is a stand-alone course. The

development of the Office of Interprofessional Education

and the course are described elsewhere (20). However, in

summary the office is supported by money from each of

the participating colleges. This institutionalization of the

office and course was essential to its success. The office is

charged with facilitating and supporting multiple cross-

college curricular developments in addition to the IFH

course, but it represents the most widely integrated effort

to date. Over 3,500 students have completed the course,

which resulted in almost 8,000 home visits serving over

500 families from the Gainesville area.

The course lasts for two semesters and is based upon

four home visits, two per semester, with volunteer families

in the local community. Approximately 60 per cent of the

families are underserved. Each family is visited by an

interprofessional team of three students. Four of these

teams make up a small group, which is supervised by two

interdisciplinary faculty members. The distribution of

families to groups is not random; the goal is to provide a

rich diversity of family types to each small group, because

the groups learn a considerable amount about each of the

four teams’ families. One group may include a Medicaid

family with multiple children, a single elder living alone, a

retired university faculty couple, and a hospice patient.

All families sign Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act (HIPAA) releases at the time of their

recruitment into the program.

The small groups meet six times during the year, in

two-hour sessions. They are responsible for different

tasks, learning objectives, and responsibilities on each

visit. The ‘raw material’ for the course thus requires

around 615 students, 125 faculty members, 200 families

and 50 meeting rooms. All group meetings are held at the

same time, as each college has made this time available

for IPE. Home visits are scheduled by team members,

who contact the family and arrange an appropriate and

mutually convenient time.

Course content

Our goals for the course are primarily to demonstrate to

students the significant impact of environment and

resources on health status, and emphasize the importance

of interprofessional collaborative effort in providing

services to patients. The overall competencies and learn-

ing objectives are shown in the appendix. Each objective

is evaluated by being linked to a course assignment. The

Table 3. RFUMS cultural course objectives

Discuss the scope and definition of culture

Examine one’s own ethno-cultural heritage and how it impacts

his/her interactions with patients, clients, and co-workers

Analyze one’s own personal and professional stereotypes and prejudices

To interpret the world of healthcare is a culture in itself

Become familiar with disparities in healthcare and aware of

government involvement in this issue Identify and discuss the impact of barriers to healthcare

Apply concepts related to the impact of culture, ethnicity, and

religion on the health beliefs, practices, and behaviors of patients and clients

Diane R. Bridges et al.

4 (page number not for citation purpose)

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035

competencies are in three major categories: patient care,

interpersonal and communication skills, and profession-

alism. The assigned tasks for the course are designed to

allow the students to implement learning activities they

have been taught in their didactic coursework. For

instance, all colleges teach students about taking a family

history or genogram, and during the first home visit

students are required to develop a genogram for their

family. Students who are taught to do vital signs are

expected to take vital signs of the family members.

Assignments vary by visit. After every home visit, each

student submits a report that describes the visit from the

student’s perspective. For the first home visit, students are

asked to submit a family genogram and a ‘windshield

survey’ which describes the neighborhood in which the

family resides, including access to drug and grocery

stores, an assessment of the safety of the location, and

other information that is to be filled out when the

students are driving to their visit. At the second visit,

students fill out an extensive health survey that assesses

the family’s health status, resources, and health behaviors.

After that visit, student teams develop a project that will

hopefully positively address the family’s health status in

some way. This could be preventive (such as an exercise

program for weight loss); social (arranging experiences

and aid for single elders); economic (helping families

enroll in Medicaid or other assistance); or educational

(teaching families about their medical and/or socio-

behavioral concerns). At the third group meeting, a

social worker attends each meeting and provides assis-

tance to the teams with regard to access to resources.

A variety of required reading and discussion questions

are also assigned and discussed during the meetings.

These address such appropriate topics as definitions of

family, techniques specific to family interviewing, caring

for the poor, issues of adherence and compliance, and

healthcare teams and communication.

During the spring semester the teams present their

projects to the family, and the last home visit is to

determine the effectiveness or acceptability of the project

from the family’s perspective. This coming year, for the

first time, we are adding content concerning the colla-

borative aspects of patient safety education.

At the conclusion of the course, teams submit their

family project to their group. This can be done as a

PowerPoint presentation, video, poster, or a written/oral

presentation. The project is done as a team, but all

students must submit a reflection paper discussing

various aspects of their participation in the course and

its impact on their development as a health professional.

Extensive online evaluations of the students and faculty

have taken place over the years, as an entire course and

by discipline.

It is important that we clarify a crucial part of our

program: because the supervising faculty include a range

of disciplines, and the faculty rarely if ever meet the

family directly, we are not providing medical, nursing,

dental, or pharmaceutical care to these families, although

the students may help arrange such services.

Future

Based on evaluations and faculty feedback, we make

changes in the course each year. Because our overarching

goal is to have interprofessional learning experiences in

all years of training, we have been working towards ways

to keep the groups together beyond their first year. This

meets with challenges because the traditional nursing,

physical therapy, and clinical psychology students have a

two-year curriculum, while pharmacy, medicine, and

dentistry have four-year programs. A committee com-

posed of the education deans from all six colleges has

developed a common set of interprofessional competen-

cies for all students. Newly developed interprofessional

coursework based on these competencies will be required

for all students.

University of Washington The University of Washington is home to six health

professions schools � medicine, pharmacy, nursing, social work, public health, and dentistry � and includes the sole allopathic medical school for the states of Washington,

Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, and Idaho (known as

WWAMI). In 1997 the university established the Center

for Health Sciences Interprofessional Education

(CHSIE), in an effort to integrate better the teaching,

research, and professional activities of these health

science schools, the information school, and the health

sciences libraries. The CHSIE was developed through

grant support from the University Initiatives Fund (21� 24). To date, over 2,300 health sciences students have

participated in formal IPE programs offered through the

CHSIE.

The course catalog for the University of Washington

includes more than 50 collaborative interprofessional

offerings for students in the health sciences, ranging

from issues in treatment of alcoholism to care for

medically underserved populations. The existence of

these courses, and support for them, provides a platform

from which students from diverse health profession

programs can learn ‘with, from, and about’ each other,

outside of their program ‘silos.’ In addition to the

integrated coursework, co-curricular service learning

and experiential training activities are available. Because

healthcare is typically provided by teams, the opportunity

to establish strategic teams of learners has been well

received by collaborating students, faculty, clinical prac-

tice sites, and community organizations, promoting

sustainability of these efforts.

Models of interprofessional education

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035 5 (page number not for citation purpose)

Experiential training programs Interprofessional team simulation

A clinical team training and skills assessment simulation

is currently in development at the University of Wa-

shington for integration into the core curricula of the

Medex, medicine, nursing, and pharmacy programs

through a grant from the Josiah Macy Foundation, using

simulation to promote interprofessional teamwork. In

this project, interprofessional student teams collaborate

to provide urgent care to simulated patients. The

simulated cases involve an acute asthma exacerbation in

an emergency room setting, a serious cardiac arrhythmia

in an intensive care setting, a patient presenting to an

urgent care setting with acute shortness of breath, and

two cases involving disclosure of medical errors. Content

primers using web-based reviews and recorded presenta-

tions are available in preparation for the simulations,

along with appropriate orientation to the simulation tools

(e.g., mannequin, crash cart, monitoring devices). Curri-

cular mapping has been conducted to identify ideal

timing of the simulations in each program to ensure

sustainable curricular integration and comparability in

student clinical preparation for participation. The objec-

tives of the simulations are both formative and summa-

tive, allowing participants to practice and demonstrate

team-based skills including communication, mutual sup-

port, leadership, and situational monitoring (25). To

receive a pass score, students participate in the training

simulations and demonstrate acceptable performance in

the summative assessment simulation. In summer 2010

beta testing of cases took place, with 24 students

participating in the human patient emergency cases

simulator and 20 students in the error disclosure standar-

dized patient simulation. A common set of IPE compe-

tencies (Table 4), based on learning objectives and

competencies published by the Halifax Nursing Associa-

tion, the CHSIE, and the TeamSTEPPS model, were used

to guide development of the simulation (21, 25, 26).

SPARX (student providers aspiring to rural and under-

served experience)

The SPARX program was developed in 1994 as an

interprofessional co-curricular (outside the classroom)

opportunity (27). The goal of SPARX is to provide health

science students with a variety of co-curricular activities,

including exposure to successful practitioners who serve

rural and medically underserved populations. A SPARX

steering committee composed of staff and faculty from

the health science schools created the infrastructure to

link the schools around the program and, in 1996, the

WWAMI Area Health Education Center Program Office

assumed responsibility for administering and funding the

SPARX program.

Staff and students collaboratively develop topics and

projects. Student participants are continually engaged

and asked to suggest new topics and direction for SPARX

to ensure that program offerings resonate with student

interests, which shift over time in response to social and

political events like health reform efforts, emerging

research, and pop culture. SPARX reaches out to

students through a variety of means, including flyers,

advertisements, and social media such as Facebook.

Experience has demonstrated, however, that nothing

substitutes for the effective outreach realized through

student meetings and class orientations.

The SPARX program consists of three elements:

forums and seminars on topics of interest or value for

rural and urban underserved providers to stimulate

student interest, training to develop skills and foster

interprofessional relationships among students, and ser-

vice projects to provide experiential learning and foster

collaborative teamwork across involved health profes-

sions students. Early SPARX projects focused on health

and wellness in rural children, kids’ health screening,

clothing drives, and outreach to migrant farm workers in

the fields. In the late 1990s SPARX supported a mobile

outreach and primary care project for urban homeless

and street-involved youth. More recently, SPARX has

partnered with Seattle Head Start to provide sensory

assessments for children in its programs and larger urban

health fairs targeting medically underserved Latinos.

In 1997 SPARX created the SPARX Participation

Award to allow students to earn a certificate through

attendance at seminars and support for projects. Students

who gain the certificate are named in a letter to their

respective deans and faculty advisors. In 2007 SPARX

and a sister program in the Department of Family

Medicine, the Community Health Advancement Program

(CHAP), linked through a shared role in delivering

program seminars, combined the award. This link

allowed students participating in either program to earn

points towards the shared SPARX/CHAP Award, recog-

nizing that students had increasingly limited time for

Table 4. University of Washington IPE competencies

Respects the roles and approaches to clinical and social

problems of one’s own and other disciplines Consults with others when outside his/her personal or profes-

sional expertise

Collaborates effectively with others to assess, plan, provide, and

review care that optimizes health outcomes for patients Collaborates effectively with other health professionals in a

variety of venues and practice settings

Raises issues or concerns that may jeopardize patient outcomes with other team members

Demonstrates consensus building and appropriate negotiation/

conflict management skills in resolving issues and concerns

Fulfills roles as either a designated or situational team leader Assists in identifying and overcoming barriers to interprofessional

collaboration

Diane R. Bridges et al.

6 (page number not for citation purpose)

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035

service activities and shouldn’t have to choose between

program offerings on account of the certificate.

Demand for and participation in the SPARX program

has increased over time. In 1995�1996 fewer than 100 students participated, and of those more than 70 per cent

were medical students. In 2009�2010 more than 500 students from all the health sciences participated in at

least one SPARX activity and 87 students will receive the

SPARX/CHAP Award. The Latina Health Fair activity

drew over 140 student volunteers, a record for any

University of Washington-sponsored service project ex-

cept the institutional support for the Martin Luther King

Jr Day of Service. In 2009�2010 SPARX offered 13 seminars, panels, and forums and seven service projects,

including sensory screening at Head Start, breakfast

programs at a youth homeless shelter nine days a month,

Martin Luther King Jr Day of Service projects, the One

Night Count of Homeless, the Latina Health Fair, and

mentoring at a school for homeless children. The Latina

Health Fair alone reached over 500 families with health

screenings, education, counseling, and referral to the

community health clinic for follow-up, demonstrating the

ability of these programs to reach far into communities.

Common elements among interprofessional curriculum models There are many elements of collaborative practice that

find their way into successful IPE experiences like those

described in this paper. These elements include responsi-

bility, accountability, coordination, communication, co-

operation, assertiveness, autonomy, and mutual trust and

respect (6). A successful interprofessional curriculum will

ensure that students can experience, share, and practice

these traits with each other.

Understanding others’ professions and your own role

in the healthcare team is critical in IPE (28). This

represents a longitudinal developmental goal; as students

become more immersed in their own education they are

likely to gain a better and more comprehensive under-

standing of their role in the healthcare team. Though at

first students may not understand the complexities of the

relationships between their profession and others, it is

important to develop a common framework early in

their education that describes a best practice model of

interprofessional interaction. This will provide a goal that

they can work towards as they move from student to

professional healthcare team member. As a part of this

enhanced understanding, exploring boundaries of each

profession will help students understand better the duties

for his/her profession.

Another key element is for students to ‘see’ the impact

of interprofessional efforts and reflect on the experience

to help reinforce interprofessional learning outcomes.

For students, their attitudes and perceptions regarding

successful models of collaboration, whether clinical or

educational, can be essential to the value of the instruc-

tion. Grading student participation will also add value

for them.

Lastly, the training of mentors/faculty is an important

element in the successful interprofessional curriculum.

Mentors and faculty need to feel confident in their

interactions with students. The significance of any

interprofessional course needs to be shared with faculty

so they can see its importance.

Resources An interprofessional curriculum requires a significant

commitment from university administration, as well as

deans and faculty from multiple professions who must

be willing to champion the effort. Each curriculum

effort should be critically evaluated, both quantitatively

and qualitatively. In addition, we have found the

following resources to be crucial to the success of the

interprofessional leaning experience.

For didactic learning experiences, consider the

following.

1. Commitment from departments and colleges to set

aside time for students to participate in the course.

2. Curricular mapping between schools can facilitate

activities.

3. Adequate rooms and facilities able to accommodate

large numbers of students, faculty, staff, and com-

munity members.

4. Creation of a space for a sense of community and

shared purpose through ice-breaking activities and

introductions.

5. Technology for web-based conferences to reach all

participants, as well as a learning system to admin-

ister course content materials and grade students.

For community-based learning experiences for stu-

dents, consider the following.

1. Do you have an enthusiastic commitment from

community partners?

2. Create projects which utilize a diversity of profes-

sions.

3. If you are using families or individuals, do you have

clear expectations as to whether this is simply an

educational experience for your students or delivery

of healthcare?

4. Are there contingencies for community participants

who become lost to follow-up?

5. Confidentiality of personal health information must

be a high priority.

6. The university must develop a community presence

so that year after year these relationships can be

strengthened and new partnerships formed.

Models of interprofessional education

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035 7 (page number not for citation purpose)

7. Remember that reflection is an important part of

service learning programs.

If you are planning an interprofessional simulation

experience for students, consider the following.

1. Calendar and schedule agreement among the parti-

cipating colleges and programs.

2. Evening and weekend activity opportunities.

3. Expertise to develop simulation experiences with

interprofessional objectives in mind.

4. Personnel to debrief experiences.

Summary recommendations There are several factors that are essential to the success

of interprofessional programs and activities.

1. Administrative support. Coordination of interprofessional

experiences may require significant changes in the

curriculum structure of one or more colleges. Deans,

curriculum committees, and educational administra-

tors must be supportive of these activities.

2. Interprofessional programmatic infrastructure. Fa-

culty resources are essential. Faculty members from

each college are needed to provide leadership and

recruit teaching faculty from their college, as well as

coordinating activities between colleges. Addition-

ally, administrative support is needed to schedule

rooms, confirm mentor availability, submit atten-

dances and grades, and find substitutes when

necessary.

3. Committed, experienced faculty. It takes dedicated

and educated faculty and staff to provide leadership

to student groups, whether in a didactic or a clinical

setting.

4. Acknowledge student efforts through awards, certi-

ficates, or grades.

While there are many barriers to developing successful

interprofessional learning experiences, they can be over-

come with persistence and commitment, as demonstrated

in these examples of successful programs. Given the

importance of quality care outcomes and the recognition

that collaborative practice improves these outcomes,

interprofessional education should be a high priority

for every training instution. We hope our experiences will

guide you to develop rewarding IPE curricula for your

students.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Rosalind Franklin

University of Medicine and Science Curriculum Task Force; Rhond-

da Waddell PhD from the University of Florida; and the University

of Washington Center for Health Sciences Interprofessional Educa-

tion and Research and the Josiah Macy Foundation for funding

support for the University of Washington interprofessional simula-

tion research. We also acknowledge the students at our three

institutions, whose buy-in and support allow IPE programs to thrive.

Conflict of interest and funding The authors have not received any funding or benefits

from industry or elsewhere to conduct this study.

References

1. Lumague M, Morgan A, Mak D, Hanna M, Kwong J, Cameron

C, et al. Interprofessional education: the student perspective. J

Interprof Care 2008; 20: 246�53. 2. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in

America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: a new health system for

the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press;

2001.

3. Barker K, Oandasan I. Interprofessional care review with

medical residents: lessons learned, tensions aired � a pilot study. J Interprof Care 2005; 19: 207�14.

4. Barr H, Koppel I, Reeves S, Hammick M, Freeth D. Effective

interprofessional education: argument, assumption and

evidence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2005.

5. Karim R, Ross C. Interprofessional education and chiropractic.

J Can Chiropr Assoc 2008; 52: 766�78. 6. Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. A national

interprofessional competency framework; February 2010. Avail-

able from: http://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_IPCompetencies_

Feb1210.pdf (cited 20 March 2010).

7. Kasperski M. Implementation strategies: ‘Collaboration in

primary care � family doctors and nurse practitioners delivering shared care.’ Toronto, ON: Ontario College of Family Physi-

cians, 2000. Available from: http://www.cfpc.ca/English/CFPC/

CLFM/bibnursing/default.asp?s�1 (cited 22 March 2010). 8. Roa R. Dignity and impudence: how should medical students

acquire and practice clinical skills for use with older people?

Med Educ 2003; 37: 190�1. 9. Morrison S. Working together: why bother with collaboration?

Work Bas Learn Prim Care 2007; 5: 65�70. 10. Zwarenstein M, Reeves S, Perrier L. Effectiveness of

pre-licensure interprofessional education and post-licensure

collaborative interventions. J Interprof Care 2005; 19: 148�65. 11. Craddock D, O’Halloran C, Borthwick A, McPherson K.

Interprofessional education in health and social care: fashion

or informed practice? Learn Health Soc Care 2006; 5: 220�42. 12. Jones R. Working together � learning together. Occasional

Paper, J Roy Coll Gen Pract 1986; 33: 1�26. 13. Casto R, Nystrom E, Burgess-Ellison J. Interprofessional

collaboration: attitude changes among students engaged in

interprofessional education. In: Interdisciplinary Health Team

Care, ed. Proceedings of Seventh Annual Conference. Chicago,

IL: Center for Educational Development, University of

Chicago; 1986, pp. 201�16. 14. Casto R. Pre-service courses for interprofessional practice.

Theory into Pract 1987; 26: 103�9. 15. Young L, Baker P, Waller S, Hodgson L, Moor M. Knowing

your allies: medical education and interprofessional exposure.

J Interprof Care 2007; 21: 155�63. 16. Courtnage L, Smith-Davis J. Interdisciplinary team training: a

national survey of special education teacher training programs.

Except Child 1987; 53: 451�9. 17. Sidelinger D, Meyer D, Blaschke G, Hametz P, Batista M,

Salguero R, et al. Communities as teachers: learning to deliver

Diane R. Bridges et al.

8 (page number not for citation purpose)

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035

culturally effective care in pediatrics. Pediatrics 2005; 115:

1160�4. 18. Bridges D, Abel M, Carlson J, Tomkowiak J. Service learning in

interprofessional education: a case study. J Phys Ther Educ

2009; 24: 41�52. 19. Waddell R, Isaza N, Murray G, Glikes M, Davidson RA. The

role of veterinary medicine in an interdisciplinary family health

course. J Vet Med Educ 2010; 37: 126�9. 20. Davidson RA, Waddell R. A historical overview of interdisci-

plinary family health: a community-based interprofessional

health professions course. Acad Med 2005; 80: 334�8. 21. University of Washington Center for Health Sciences

Interprofessional Education. Available from: http://www.

interprofessional.washington.edu/default.asp (cited 28 June

2010).

22. Mitchell PH, Crittenden RA. Interdisciplinary collaboration:

old ideas with new urgency. Wash Public Health 2000; 17: 51�3. 23. Mitchell PH, Hunt DD, Anderson G, Almgren G, Kimball

AM, Crittenden R, et al. Health Sciences Partnerships in

Interprofessional Clinical Education (HSPICE): implementing

and sustaining interprofessional education in a research-inten-

sive university. Washington, DC: Association of Academic

Health Centers 2002, 17.

24. Mitchell P, Belza B, Schaad D, Robins L, Gianola F, Odegard P,

et al. Working across the boundaries of health professions

disciplines in education, research, and service: the University of

Washington experience. Acad Med 2006; 81: 1�6. 25. US Department of Health and Human Services Agency for

Healthcare Policy Research, TeamSTEPPS Home. Available

from: http://teamstepps.ahrq.gov/ (cited 29 June 2010).

26. Banfield V, Lackie K. Performance-based competencies for

culturally responsive interprofessional collaborative practice.

J Interprof Care 2009; 23: 611�20. 27. Norris T, House P, Shaad D, Mas J, Kelday J. Student providers

aspiring to rural and underserved experiences at the University

of Washington: promoting team practice among the health care

professions. Acad Med 2003; 78: 1211�6. 28. Lister L. Role training for interdisciplinary health teams. Health

Soc Work 1982; 7: 19�25.

*Diane R. Bridges Department of Interprofessional Healthcare Studies Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science 3333 Green Bay Road North Chicago, IL 60064, USA Tel: 847 578 8479 Email: [email protected]

Models of interprofessional education

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035 9 (page number not for citation purpose)

Appendix. University of Florida 2010�2011 Interdisciplinary Family Health required competencies

(A list of assignments that evaluate each competency

follows the competency. The assignments are given below.)

Patient care competencies Health professionals must be able to provide patient care

that is compassionate, appropriate, and effective for the

treatment of health problems and the promotion of

health. Our students are expected to:

1. communicate effectively and demonstrate caring and

respectful behaviors when interacting with volun-

teers and their families

2. gather essential and accurate information about

their assigned families

3. evaluate health behavior and develop a family health

project for one of the members in the volunteer

family

4. counsel and educate volunteers and their families

5. provide healthcare information aimed at preventing

health problems or maintaining health

6. develop a basic understanding of the features of the

community in which the volunteer family resides as

they relate to support structures, resources, and

access to healthcare

7. learn and understand key patient safety concepts,

core theories, and terminology, such as adverse

events, close calls, and a culture of safety

8. understand the impact of patient errors on the

family and the provider

9. recognize and respond appropriately to potential

and actual unsafe clinical situations.

Interprofessional and communication skills competencies IFH students must be able to demonstrate interpersonal

and communication skills that result in effective informa-

tion exchange and teaming with volunteers, their families,

and professional associates. Students are expected to:

1. communicate and collaborate professionally and

therapeutically with assigned families and students

from different healthcare professions

2. develop skills in eliciting perceptions of health from

family members

3. demonstrate ability to collect a culturally sensitive

and comprehensive health history, including mood,

medication, and nutritional assessment

4. use effective listening skills and elicit and provide

information using effective non-verbal, explanatory,

questioning, and writing skills

5. work effectively with others as a member or leader of

a healthcare team or other professional group

6. demonstrate knowledge of and respect for over-

lapping roles and distinct competencies of different

health professionals

7. present synthesized information related to the health

of the volunteer in a small group setting.

Professionalism competencies Students must demonstrate a commitment to carrying

out professional responsibilities, adherence to ethical

principles, and sensitivity to a diverse patient population.

IFH students are expected to:

1. demonstrate respect, compassion, and integrity; a

responsiveness to the needs of patients and society

that supersedes self-interest; accountability to pa-

tients, society, and the profession; and a commit-

ment to excellence and ongoing professional

development

2. meet the responsibilities of the IFH course, includ-

ing attending all small group sessions and complet-

ing each assigned home visit by the required date

3. demonstrate a commitment to ethical principles

pertaining to provision or withholding of clinical

care, confidentiality of patient information, in-

formed consent, and business practices

4. demonstrate sensitivity and responsiveness to pa-

tients’ culture, age, gender, and disabilities

5. demonstrate willingness for self- and external eva-

luation and feedback

6. demonstrate a commitment to patient safety as a key

professional value and an essential component of

daily practice.

Assignments

1. Family home visit

2. Home visit reports

3. Genogram

4. Windshield survey

5. Family health survey

6. Small group discussion

7. Family health outline and project

8. Reflection report and presentation

9. Social service consult

10. Peer evaluation

11. Pre-course web-based learning in patient safety

Diane R. Bridges et al.

10 (page number not for citation purpose)

Citation: Medical Education Online 2011, 16: 6035 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.6035

Copyright of Medical Education Online is the property of Co-Action Publishing and its content may not be

copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written

permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.