• Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found
Is Open Access

Interprofessional Education and Practice Guide No. 1; Developing faculty to effectively facilitate interprofessional education

Read this article at

      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


      With the growth of interprofessional education (IPE) and practice in health professional schools, faculty members are being asked to assume new roles in leading or delivering interprofessional curriculum. Many existing faculty members feel ill-prepared to face the challenges of this curricular innovation. From 2012–2013, University of Missouri – Columbia and University of Washington partnered with six additional academic health centers to pilot a faculty development course to prepare faculty leaders for IPE. Using a variety of techniques, including didactic teaching, small group exercises, immersion participation in interprofessional education, local implementation of new IPE projects, and peer learning, the program positioned each site to successfully introduce an interprofessional innovation. Participating faculty confirmed the value of the program, and suggested that more widespread similar efforts were worthwhile. This guide briefly describes this faculty development program and identifies key lessons learned from the initiative. Peer learning arising from a faculty development community, adaptation of curricula to fit local context, experiential learning, and ongoing coaching/mentoring, especially as it related to actual participation in IPE activities, were among the key elements of this successful faculty development activity.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 32

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world.

        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8.

        Preparing healthcare professionals for teaching is regarded as essential to enhancing teaching effectiveness. Although many reports describe various faculty development interventions, there is a paucity of research demonstrating their effectiveness. To synthesize the existing evidence that addresses the question: "What are the effects of faculty development interventions on the knowledge, attitudes and skills of teachers in medical education, and on the institutions in which they work?" The search, covering the period 1980-2002, included three databases (Medline, ERIC and EMBASE) and used the keywords: staff development; in-service training; medical faculty; faculty training/development; continuing medical education. Manual searches were also conducted. Articles with a focus on faculty development to improve teaching effectiveness, targeting basic and clinical scientists, were reviewed. All study designs that included outcome data beyond participant satisfaction were accepted. From an initial 2777 abstracts, 53 papers met the review criteria. Data were extracted by six coders, using the standardized BEME coding sheet, adapted for our use. Two reviewers coded each study and coding differences were resolved through discussion. Data were synthesized using Kirkpatrick's four levels of educational outcomes. Findings were grouped by type of intervention and described according to levels of outcome. In addition, 8 high-quality studies were analysed in a 'focused picture'. The majority of the interventions targeted practicing clinicians. All of the reports focused on teaching improvement and the interventions included workshops, seminar series, short courses, longitudinal programs and 'other interventions'. The study designs included 6 randomized controlled trials and 47 quasi-experimental studies, of which 31 used a pre-test-post-test design. Despite methodological limitations, the faculty development literature tends to support the following outcomes: Overall satisfaction with faculty development programs was high. Participants consistently found programs acceptable, useful and relevant to their objectives. Participants reported positive changes in attitudes toward faculty development and teaching. Participants reported increased knowledge of educational principles and gains in teaching skills. Where formal tests of knowledge were used, significant gains were shown. Changes in teaching behavior were consistently reported by participants and were also detected by students. Changes in organizational practice and student learning were not frequently investigated. However, reported changes included greater educational involvement and establishment of collegiate networks. Key features of effective faculty development contributing to effectiveness included the use of experiential learning, provision of feedback, effective peer and colleague relationships, well-designed interventions following principles of teaching and learning, and the use of a diversity of educational methods within single interventions. Methodological issues: More rigorous designs and a greater use of qualitative and mixed methods are needed to capture the complexity of the interventions. Newer methods of performance-based assessment, utilizing diverse data sources, should be explored, and reliable and valid outcome measures should be developed. The maintenance of change over time should also be considered, as should process-oriented studies comparing different faculty development strategies. Faculty development activities appear highly valued by participants, who also report changes in learning and behavior. Notwithstanding the methodological limitations in the literature, certain program characteristics appear to be consistently associated with effectiveness. Further research to explore these associations and document outcomes, at the individual and organizational level, is required.
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9.

          BACKGROUND AND REVIEW CONTEXT: Evidence to support the proposition that learning together will help practitioners and agencies work better together remains limited and thinly spread. This review identified, collated, analysed and synthesised the best available contemporary evidence from 21 of the strongest evaluations of IPE to inform the above proposition. In this way we sought to help shape future interprofessional education and maximize the potential for interprofessional learning to contribute to collaborative practice and better care. To identify and review the strongest evaluations of IPE. To classify the outcomes of IPE and note the influence of context on particular outcomes. To develop a narrative about the mechanisms that underpin and inform positive and negative outcomes of IPE. Bibliographic database searches as follows: Medline 1966-2003, CINAHL 1982-2001, BEI 1964-2001, ASSIA 1990-2003 which produced 10,495 abstracts. Subsequently, 884 full papers were obtained and scrutinized. In addition, hand searching (2003-5 issues) of 21 journals known to have published two or more higher quality studies from a previous review. Peer-reviewed papers and reports included in the review had to be formal educational initiatives attended by at least two of the many professional groups from health and social care, with the objective of improving care; and learning with, from and about each other. Standard systematic review procedures were applied for sifting abstracts, scrutinizing full papers and abstracting data. Two members of the team checked each abstract to decide whether the full paper should be read. A third member was consulted over any discrepancies. Similarly, each full paper was read by at least two members of the team and agreement sought before passing it to one member of the team (SR) for data abstraction. Other members of the team checked 10% of the abstraction records. Coding into a Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) data base led to collection of different outcome measures used in the primary studies via the common metric of an adapted Kirkpatrick's four-level model of educational outcomes. Additionally, a narrative synthesis was built after analysis of primary data with the 3-P model (presage-process-product) of education development and delivery. Government calls for enhanced collaboration amongst practitioners frequently leads to IPE that is then developed and delivered by educators, practitioners or service managers. Staff development is a key influence on the effectiveness of IPE for learners who all have unique values about themselves and others. Authenticity and customization of IPE are important mechanisms for positive outcomes of IPE. Interprofessional education is generally well received, enabling knowledge and skills necessary for collaborative working to be learnt; it is less able to positively influence attitudes and perceptions towards others in the service delivery team. In the context of quality improvement initiatives interprofessional education is frequently used as a mechanism to enhance the development of practice and improvement of services.

            Author and article information

            1School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Dean’s Office ColumbiaUSA
            2School of Nursing, University of Washington SeattleUSA
            Author notes
            Correspondence: Leslie Walter Hall, School of Medicine, University of Missouri, Dean’s Office 1 Hospital Drive, Columbia 65212USA. E-mail: halllw@
            J Interprof Care
            J Interprof Care
            Journal of Interprofessional Care
            Informa UK Ltd.
            January 2015
            17 July 2014
            : 29
            : 1
            : 3-7
            25019466 4266098 10.3109/13561820.2014.937483
            © 2015 Informa UK Ltd. All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted

            This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 License which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is credited.

            Original Article


            Comment on this article