PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and report physician assistant (PA) student experiences, learning, and opinions regarding interprofessional education (IPE). METHODS: A series of open-ended questions was constructed and designed to solicit PA students' opinions about the need for IPE, preferred teaching strategies, and implementation methods, using focus group methodology. We used two sets of questions, one for students who had participated in a formal geriatrics IPE experience (n = 12), the other for students who did not have the experience (n = 10). Focus group sessions were audiotaped and transcripts coded. Key themes were identified and ranked. RESULTS: Twenty-two students participated in four focus groups. Theme saturation was reached and six overlapping themes emerged: (1) PA students learned the most about occupational and physical therapist roles; (2) They were surprised at other professions' lack of knowledge about the PA profession; (3) They strongly expressed that IPE should be required early in training; (4) They expressed preference for direct patient care with other health professions students, with trained faculty oversight; (5) They requested diverse clinical settings; and (6) They identified the optimal number of different students in a single IPE experience as four/five. The group exposed to geriatrics IPE noted the critical importance of faculty training for facilitation, while the nonexposed group emphasized the challenge of limited curricular time. CONCLUSION: PA students recognize the importance of IPE and request early, required clinical experiences led by well-trained interprofessional faculty with the option to choose clinical sites. Student preferences should be considered in IPE curriculum design.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and report physician assistant (PA) student experiences, learning, and opinions regarding interprofessional education (IPE). METHODS: A series of open-ended questions was constructed and designed to solicit PA students' opinions about the need for IPE, preferred teaching strategies, and implementation methods, using focus group methodology. We used two sets of questions, one for students who had participated in a formal geriatrics IPE experience (n = 12), the other for students who did not have the experience (n = 10). Focus group sessions were audiotaped and transcripts coded. Key themes were identified and ranked. RESULTS: Twenty-two students participated in four focus groups. Theme saturation was reached and six overlapping themes emerged: (1) PA students learned the most about occupational and physical therapist roles; (2) They were surprised at other professions' lack of knowledge about the PA profession; (3) They strongly expressed that IPE should be required early in training; (4) They expressed preference for direct patient care with other health professions students, with trained faculty oversight; (5) They requested diverse clinical settings; and (6) They identified the optimal number of different students in a single IPE experience as four/five. The group exposed to geriatrics IPE noted the critical importance of faculty training for facilitation, while the nonexposed group emphasized the challenge of limited curricular time. CONCLUSION: PA students recognize the importance of IPE and request early, required clinical experiences led by well-trained interprofessional faculty with the option to choose clinical sites. Student preferences should be considered in IPE curriculum design.