Perceptions of residents, medical and nursing students about Interprofessional education: a systematic review of the quantitative and qualitative literature

Abstract

BackgroundTo identify facilitators and barriers that residents, medical and nursing students perceive in their Interprofessional Education (IPE) in a clinical setting with other healthcare students.MethodsA systematic review was carried out to identify the perceptions of medical students, residents and nursing students regarding IPE in a clinical setting. PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC and PsycInfo were searched, using keywords and MeSH terms from each database’s inception published prior to June 2014. Interprofessional education involving nursing and medical students and/or residents in IPE were selected by the first author. Two authors independently assessed studies for inclusion or exclusion and extracted the data.ResultsSixty-five eligible papers (27 quantitative, 16 qualitative and 22 mixed methods) were identified and synthesized using narrative synthesis. Perceptions and attitudes of residents and students could be categorized into ‘Readiness for IPE’, ‘Barriers to IPE’ and ‘Facilitators of IPE’. Within each category they work at three levels: individual, process/curricular and cultural/organizational. Readiness for IPE at individual level is higher in females, irrespective of prior healthcare experience. At process level readiness for IPE fluctuates during medical school, at cultural level collaboration is jeopardized when groups interact poorly. Examples of IPE-barriers are at individual level feeling intimidated by doctors, at process level lack of formal assessment and at cultural level exclusion of medical students from interaction by nurses. Examples of IPE-facilitators are at individual level affective crises and patient care crises situations that create feelings of urgency, at process level small group learning activities in an authentic context and at cultural level getting acquainted informally.These results are related to a model for learning and teaching, to illustrate the implications for the design of IPE.ConclusionsMost of the uncovered barriers are at the cultural level and most of the facilitators are at the process level. Factors at the individual level need more research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-017-0909-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Students’ motivation for interprofessional collaboration after their experience on an IPE ward: A qualitative analysis framed by self-determination theory

“…This requires deliberate Interprofessional Education (IPE). Pedagogies and organization of IPE wards (Jakobsen 2016) as well as factors hindering and facilitating IPE have been described (Visser et al 2017). How an IPE ward influences students motivation for interprofessional learning and future interprofessional collaboration (IPC), which is relevant to sustain interprofessional collaboration is not known.…”

Trajetória e implementação de disciplina interprofissional para cursos da área de Saúde

“…This cultural and methodological difficulty is reported by Visser 34 , in 2017, highlighting that these barriers require new studies for better comprehension. However, the emphasis on interpersonal skills as a fundamental characteristic of a successful interprofessional work must logically imply that students also have opportunities of interacting face to face with other students and professionals 35 .…”

Education Program for Students in Multiple Health-care Fields to Support Communication with Patients with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis

“…In a similar way, it was difficult for elementary school students to remember what they had learned in a first-aid program held 4 months earlier [15]. Further, inter-professional education would appear to be suitable for students from a wide range of health-related backgrounds, i.e., not only physicians but also nurses and other professionals [16,17].…”

“…T As public support system for patients with difficulty communicating, government institutions are not uniform in Japan, and procedures may be revised or amended. 17 16 17…”