OBJECTIVE: To present and describe interprofessional education (IPE) in 6 US colleges of pharmacy including benefits, barriers, and strategies for implementation. METHODS: A focus group with campus faculty IPE leaders and administrators was conducted at each of the 6 colleges. External facilitators used a structured script with open-ended questions to guide each session. A qualitative approach was used and content analysis of transcripts was conducted. RESULTS: On a 10-point scale, mean participant interest in IPE was 8.8 +/- 1.7. Incentives included enhanced student education, instructional economies of scale, improved communication among disciplines, and promotion of teamwork to improve quality of care. Curricular logistics, limited resources, lack of conceptual support, and cultural issues were the major barriers to IPE. Institutions were at various stages of IPE implementation. Participants emphasized that full institutional support was critical in maintaining IPE programs. CONCLUSION: Interest in IPE was high and opportunities were numerous as described by faculty members at the institutions; however, numerous challenges to implementation were identified.
OBJECTIVE: To present and describe interprofessional education (IPE) in 6 US colleges of pharmacy including benefits, barriers, and strategies for implementation. METHODS: A focus group with campus faculty IPE leaders and administrators was conducted at each of the 6 colleges. External facilitators used a structured script with open-ended questions to guide each session. A qualitative approach was used and content analysis of transcripts was conducted. RESULTS: On a 10-point scale, mean participant interest in IPE was 8.8 +/- 1.7. Incentives included enhanced student education, instructional economies of scale, improved communication among disciplines, and promotion of teamwork to improve quality of care. Curricular logistics, limited resources, lack of conceptual support, and cultural issues were the major barriers to IPE. Institutions were at various stages of IPE implementation. Participants emphasized that full institutional support was critical in maintaining IPE programs. CONCLUSION: Interest in IPE was high and opportunities were numerous as described by faculty members at the institutions; however, numerous challenges to implementation were identified.
Authors: Kim M Jones; Donald K Blumenthal; John M Burke; Michelle Condren; Richard Hansen; Monica Holiday-Goodman; Charles D Peterson Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2012-06-18 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Abby A Kahaleh; Jennifer Danielson; Kari L Franson; Wesley A Nuffer; Elena M Umland Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-08-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Robert A Mangione; Wendy C Duncan; Mark S Johnson; Anandi V Law; Dolores Nobles Knight; Cathy L Worrall; William G Lang Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2015-10-25 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: David D Allen; Julie Lauffenburger; Anandi V Law; R Pete Vanderveen; William G Lang Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 2.047