Background: Interprofessional education (IPE) aims to bring together different professionals to learn with, from and about one another in order to collaborate more effectively in the delivery of safe, high quality care for patients/clients. Given its potential for improving collaboration and care delivery, there have been repeated calls for the wider scale implementation of IPE across education and clinical settings. Increasingly, a range of IPE initiatives are being implemented and evaluated which are adding to the growth of evidence for this form of education. Aim:The overall aim of this review is to update a previous BEME review published in 2007. In doing so, this update sought to synthesise the evolving nature of the IPE evidence.Methods: Medline, CINAHL, BEI and ASSIA were searched from May 2005 to June 2014. Also, journal hand searches were undertaken. All potential abstracts and papers were screened by pairs of reviewers to determine inclusion. All included papers were assessed for methodological quality and those deemed as 'high quality' were included. The presageprocess-product (3P) model and a modified Kirkpatrick model were employed to analyse and synthesise the included studies.Results: Twenty-five new IPE studies were included in this update. These studies were added to the 21 studies from the previous review to form a complete data set of 46 high quality IPE studies. In relation to the 3P model, overall the updated review found that most of the presage and process factors identified from the previous review were further supported in the newer studies. In regards to the products (outcomes) reported, the results from this review continue to show far more positive than neutral or mixed outcomes reported in the included studies. Based on the modified Kirkpatrick model, the included studies suggest that learners respond well to IPE, their attitudes and perceptions of one another improve, and they report increases in collaborative knowledge and skills. There is more limited, but growing, evidence related to changes in behaviour, organisational practice and benefits to patients/clients. Conclusions:This updated review found that key context (presage) and process factors reported in the previous review continue to have resonance on the delivery of IPE. In addition, the newer studies have provided further evidence for the effects on IPE related to a number of different outcomes. Based on these conclusions, a series of key implications for the development of IPE are offered.

Background: Resident research has potential benefits and scholarly activity is an internal medicine residency training requirement. This study sought to learn about the resources needed and the barriers to performing scholarly work during residency from residents who had been successful. Methods: A questionnaire was delivered to 138 internal medicine residents presenting their work at the 2002 American College of Physicians‐American Society of Internal Medicine annual session. Residents were asked to comment on why they had participated in a scholarly project, the skills and resources needed to complete the project, as well as the barriers. Comparisons were made between residents who presented a research abstract and those who exhibited a clinical vignette. Results: Seventy‐three residents (53%) completed the questionnaire. Thirty‐nine residents presented a clinical vignette and 34 displayed a research abstract. Residents participated in research for a variety of reasons, including intellectual curiosity (73%), career development (60%), and to fulfill a mandatory scholarly activity requirement at their residency program (32%). The most common barriers were insufficient time (79%), inadequate research skills (45%), and lack of a research curriculum (44%). Residents who had presented research abstracts devoted more time (median, 200 vs 50 hours; P<.05) to their project than those who exhibited clinical vignettes. Sixty‐nine percent of residents thought research should be a residency requirement. Conclusions: The majority of respondents reported that their scholarly project was a worthwhile experience despite considerable barriers. Teaching research skills more explicitly with a focused curriculum and providing adequate protected time may enable residents to be successful.

With the shift towards interprofessional education to promote collaborative practice, clinical preceptors are increasingly working with trainees from various professions to provide patient care. It is unclear whether and how preceptors modify their existing precepting approach when working with trainees from other professions. There is little information on strategies for this type of precepting, and how preceptors may foster or impede interprofessional collaboration. The purpose of this qualitative description pilot study was to identify current methods preceptors use to teach trainees from other professions in the clinical setting, particularly advanced practice nursing and medical trainees, and to identify factors that support or impede this type of precepting. Data collected through observations and interviews were analyzed by the research team using thematic analysis procedures. Three major themes were identified: 1) a variety of teaching approaches and levels of engagement with trainees of different professions, 2) preceptor knowledge gaps related to curricula, goals, and scope of practice of trainees from other professions, and 3) administrative, structural and logistical elements that impact the success of precepting trainees from different professions in the clinical setting. This study has implications for faculty development and evaluation of current precepting practices in clinical settings.

OBJECTIVES To identify clinical measures that aid detection of impending severe mobility difficulty in older women. DESIGN Cross-sectional and longitudinal cohort study. SETTING Urban community in Baltimore, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS One thousand two community-dwelling, moderate to severely disabled women aged 65 and older in the Women’s Health and Aging Study I. MEASUREMENTS Self-report and performance measures representing six domains necessary for mobility: central and peripheral nervous systems, muscles, bones and joints, perception, and energy. Severe mobility difficulty was defined as usual gait of 0.5 m/s or less, any reported difficulty walking across a small room, or dependence on a walking aid during a 4-m walking test. RESULTS Four hundred sixty-seven out of 984 (47%) had severe mobility difficulty at baseline, and 104/474 (22%) developed it within 12 months. Baseline mobility difficulty was correlated with poor vision, knee pain, feelings of helplessness, inability to stand with feet side by side for 10 seconds, difficulty keeping balance while dressing or walking, inability to rise from a chair five times, and cognitive impairment. Of these, knee pain (odds ratio (OR) = 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05–2.89), helplessness (OR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.10–3.24), poor vision (OR = 2.03, 95% CI = 1.06–3.89), inability to rise from a chair five times (OR = 2.50, 95% CI = 1.15–5.41), and cognitive impairment (OR = 4.75, 95% CI = 1.67–13.48) predicted incident severe mobility difficulty within 12 months, independent of age. CONCLUSION Five simple measures may aid identification of disabled older women at high risk of severe mobility difficulty. Further studies should determine generalizability to men and higher-functioning individuals.

No abstract