Surveying the Landscape: Determining National Interprofessional Programs’ Curricular Processes and Assessment Practices
Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) is explicitly mandated across most health professions to foster collaborative practice among healthcare professionals. However, the absence of a standardized approach for developing and implementing IPE curricula, as well as for identifying and assessing appropriate learning outcomes, has resulted in significant variation both within and across different health professions. Understanding how educational institutions with nationally-recognized IPE centers and programs implement their IPE curricula and assessment practices is crucial for gaining insights into effective methodologies and practices. The objective of this national study is to examine the IPE curricula and assessment methods employed by health profession colleges, schools, and academic health centers.
Methodology: A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted of all IPE centers, programs, and initiatives listed on the website for the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education (n=124). A researcher-developed survey was created to explore participants’ different approaches to IPE from a curriculum and assessment perspective. Face validity was established through expert feedback of faculty members and practitioners. Data was analyzed descriptively with frequency counts and means as appropriate.
Results: A 55.6% response rate was obtained (n=69). Despite marked heterogeneity in most aspects of IPE curriculum and assessment methods, several commonalities emerged. Most respondents centralized IPE programming at the university or school level. Most institutions required students to complete a foundational level course, specified a total number of total IPE experiences that must be completed, and/or integrated IPE experiences into required curricula. Most classified their IPE activities by level of learning (year in the program). Most evaluated individual IPE activity effectiveness on an annual basis and used a standardized instrument to assess these activities; however, the instrument(s) used greatly varied between institutions. The majority assessed IPE learning outcomes but allowed individual health professions’ programs to determine the method and timing of assessments.
Conclusions: While there are some commonalities across institutions regarding IPE curriculum and assessment approaches, there are still no “best practices” widely being used and recognized as universally effective. Continued research is needed to understand how different approaches might be tailored to best meet the needs of various health professions programs.
Reflections: The absence of a one-size-fits-all model underscores the importance of flexibility in IPE, promoting the development of adaptable, context-specific programs that can meet diverse educational needs. Many programs expressed a desire for greater standardization to guide the development of flexible, yet structured guidelines, to ensure consistency while allowing for necessary customization.