Annette G Greer1, Maria Clay, Amy Blue, Clyde H Evans, David Garr. 1. Dr. Greer is assistant professor, Department of Bioethics and Interdisciplinary Studies, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. Dr. Clay is professor and chair, Department of Bioethics and Interdisciplinary Studies, Brody School of Medicine, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina. Dr. Blue is associate dean for educational affairs and associate vice president for interprofessional education, University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions, Gainesville, Florida. At the time of writing, she was professor of family medicine, assistant provost for education, and director, Creating Collaborative Care (C3), Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina. Dr. Evans is senior consultant, Academy for Academic Leadership, Needham, Massachusetts. Dr. Garr is executive director, South Carolina Area Health Education Consortium, associate dean for community medicine, and professor of family medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the emphasis on prevention in U.S. health care reform efforts, the importance of interprofessional education (IPE) that prepares health professions students to be part of effective health care teams is greater than ever. This study examined the prevalence and nature of IPE and interprofessional (IP) prevention education in U.S. academic health centers. METHOD: The authors extracted a 10-item survey from the longer published IPE Assessment and Planning Instrument. In September 2010, they sent the survey to 346 health professions leaders in health sciences schools and colleges at 100 academic health centers. These institutions were identified via the online membership list of the Association of Academic Health Centers. The authors conducted descriptive statistical analysis and cross-tabulations. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 127 contacts at 68 universities in 31 states and the District of Columbia. IPE was more prevalent than IP prevention education in all categories of measurement. Respondents affirmed existence of IPE in courses (85.0%) and in clinical rotations/internships (80.3%). The majority reported personnel with responsibility for IPE (68.5%) or prevention education (59.8%) at their institutional unit, and 59.8% reported an IPE office or center. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that IPE and IP prevention education exist in academic health centers, but additional attention should be paid to the development of IP prevention education. Sample syllabi, job descriptions, and policies may be available to support adoption of IPE and IP prevention education. Further effort is needed to increase the integration of IP and prevention education into practice.
PURPOSE: Given the emphasis on prevention in U.S. health care reform efforts, the importance of interprofessional education (IPE) that prepares health professions students to be part of effective health care teams is greater than ever. This study examined the prevalence and nature of IPE and interprofessional (IP) prevention education in U.S. academic health centers. METHOD: The authors extracted a 10-item survey from the longer published IPE Assessment and Planning Instrument. In September 2010, they sent the survey to 346 health professions leaders in health sciences schools and colleges at 100 academic health centers. These institutions were identified via the online membership list of the Association of Academic Health Centers. The authors conducted descriptive statistical analysis and cross-tabulations. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 127 contacts at 68 universities in 31 states and the District of Columbia. IPE was more prevalent than IP prevention education in all categories of measurement. Respondents affirmed existence of IPE in courses (85.0%) and in clinical rotations/internships (80.3%). The majority reported personnel with responsibility for IPE (68.5%) or prevention education (59.8%) at their institutional unit, and 59.8% reported an IPE office or center. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that IPE and IP prevention education exist in academic health centers, but additional attention should be paid to the development of IP prevention education. Sample syllabi, job descriptions, and policies may be available to support adoption of IPE and IP prevention education. Further effort is needed to increase the integration of IP and prevention education into practice.
Authors: Courtney West; Lori Graham; Ryan T Palmer; Marissa Fuqua Miller; Erin K Thayer; Margaret L Stuber; Linda Awdishu; Rachel A Umoren; Maria A Wamsley; Elizabeth A Nelson; Pablo A Joo; James W Tysinger; Paul George; Patricia A Carney Journal: J Interprof Educ Pract Date: 2016-07-19
Authors: T Michael Kashner; Debbie L Hettler; Robert A Zeiss; David C Aron; David S Bernett; Judy L Brannen; John M Byrne; Grant W Cannon; Barbara K Chang; Mary B Dougherty; Stuart C Gilman; Gloria J Holland; Catherine P Kaminetzky; Annie B Wicker; Sheri A Keitz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2016-03-18 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Brita Roy; Shobhina G Chheda; Carol Bates; Kathel Dunn; Reena Karani; Lisa L Willett Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 5.128