Attaining and assessing the Australian interprofessional learning competencies

Exploring experiential learning within interprofessional practice education initiatives for pre-licensure healthcare students: a scoping review

“…In four articles an intention was to produce reflexive learners and critical thinking in their discipline roles [ 61 , 73 , 100 , 111 ], while three aimed to develop interprofessional capacity in primary health care education [ 52 , 108 , 116 ] and five promoted faculty engagement in IPP or collaboration between education and health systems (e.g., academic partnerships) [ 99 , 108 , 123 , 125 , 148 ]. Developing, piloting, and/or evaluating a model of interprofessional delivery of service was an intention in seven articles [ 57 , 62 , 81 , 101 , 125 , 136 , 147 ].…”

“…Many articles described a mix of participation models by students from different health disciplines. For example, in seven IPP education initiatives some students could pick either to be volunteers for the initiative or to have a clinical placement at the same initiative [ 68 , 73 , 105 , 121 , 126 , 133 , 136 ]. A second model of mixed participation was where some disciplines were mandated to the initiative for clinical practice while other disciplines were there as an elective/optional course or otherwise to receive credit [ 50 , 58 , 72 , 101 , 120 , 146 ].…”

“…In addition to a variety of settings where IPP education was situated (Table 1 ) the initiatives provided services to a range of population groups. By specific age group, services were provided to infants and children [ 49 , 74 , 103 , 107 , 113 , 123 , 126 ], adults [ 70 , 81 , 136 ], and older adults (≥60 years old) [ 50 , 57 , 66 , 83 – 86 , 105 , 112 , 116 , 117 , 146 ]. Services were provided to patients with specific conditions or disease processes that included chronic disease (e.g., COPD, diabetes, hypertension, HIV, etc.)…”

“…The majority of articles ( n = 94) described some aspect of roles and participation of faculty, clinical instructors, site-based professional preceptors or mentors, and/or other stakeholders in the planning and operation of IPP education initiatives. There was variation in terminology used to describe instructional personnel participating from academic settings (e.g., academic educators, academic staff, clinical instructors, clinical supervisors, faculty members, lecturers, practice-educators, professors, university clinical facilitators, residents, teachers) [ 52 , 61 , 91 , 94 , 101 , 103 , 116 , 123 , 129 , 131 , 136 , 140 , 144 , 148 ] and general use of terms to denote professional positions (e.g., facilitator, mentor, licensed clinicians, nurse educator, placement practitioner, preceptor, primary care preceptor, professional staff) [ 48 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 87 , 89 , 128 , 135 , 141 ], which made it challenging to distinguish whether instructional personnel were strictly from academic institutions or from the host setting. However, professional input to planning and oversight by licensed practitioners, whether from academic or host institutions, was a foundational element in supporting learning of pre-licensure students in IPP education initiatives.…”

“…Instructional personnel provided or led seminars, educational support, reflective sessions, IP team meetings, reviewed assignments, and other non-clinical teaching activities [ 98 , 101 , 112 , 118 , 131 , 140 , 141 ]. Professional oversight of students in placements that was explicitly described was either solely by academic personnel [ 50 , 52 , 54 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 66 , 76 , 77 , 83 , 85 , 88 , 94 , 103 , 115 , 120 , 126 , 127 , 131 , 136 , 142 , 146 , 147 ] or with involvement of licensed personnel from the healthcare setting [ 51 , 53 , 56 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 63 – 65 , 68 – 70 , 72 , 75 , 82 , 86 , 87 , 89 – 91 , 97 – 99 , 104 , 106 – 108 , 110 – 112 , 114 , 121 , 122 , 129 , 130 , 132 – 135 , 137 , 139 , …”