Development and Implementation of Interprofessional Relations Between a College of Pharmacy and Osteopathic Residency Programs in a Community Teaching Hospital

Abstract

Background: Team-based health care optimizes patient outcomes, and therefore, both interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional relations (IPR) are required in health professions education, postgraduate training, and real-world clinical practice. Existing literature describes progressive developments and assessments of IPE in colleges of pharmacy and medicine; however, there are fewer reports describing processes or projects that foster physician-pharmacist IPR in clinical practices without established interprofessional collaborations. Objectives: The primary objective was to establish IPR between pharmacists and osteopathic residents in a community teaching hospital. The secondary objective was to innovate the delivery of pharmacotherapeutic content delivered to the residents during their didactic lecture series by providing active learning strategies. Methods: This report describes a project wherein college of pharmacy faculty developed IPR with osteopathic residents in a community teaching hospital that previously did not have any established physician-pharmacist IPR. Osteopathic medical residents completed a post-implementation survey after they attended a 12-month series of didactic lectures that incorporated active learning delivered by pharmacist faculty. Results: Sixty-six residents were eligible to complete the survey; 20 residents completed the survey. Eighteen residents believed that both physicians and pharmacists should be educated to establish IPR and that it should be included in professional, graduate, and continuing education settings for both professions. Sixteen residents believed that the active learning techniques employed by college of pharmacy faculty were useful for IPR. Conclusions: Physician-pharmacist IPR may be achievable in settings where IPR was previously sparse. Shared interests, adherence, and innovations in IPR frameworks are essential for developing physician-pharmacist IPR.

Student Perception and the Effectiveness of Kahoot!: A Scoping Review in Histology, Anatomy, and Medical Education

“…(Bhat and Sudeep, 2017; Fatima et al, 2017; Ismail and Mohammad, 2017; Aktekin et al, 2018; Felszeghy et al, 2019; Youhasan and Raheem, 2019; Neureiter et al, 2020; Solanki et al, 2020) followed by two (17%) pre‐clinical evaluations (Jamil et al, 2018; Ismail et al, 2019). Only one study (Boylan et al, 2020) evaluated postgraduate students' perceptions of using Kahoot! and only one study evaluated Instructor perceptions in medical residency (Calle et al, 2019).…”

“…A half of the studies used a qualitative approach to either survey students through questionnaires only (Jamil et al, 2018; Youhasan and Raheem, 2019; Boylan et al, 2020; Solanki et al, 2020) or by combining questionnaire surveys with follow‐up focus groups (Aktekin et al, 2018; Ismail et al, 2019). Two studies (Felszeghy et al, 2019; Neureiter et al, 2020) used both a quantitative and a qualitative approach, with one of these studies further exploring the team‐based versus individual Kahoot!…”

“…Outcomes from the research included in the scoping review focused mainly on student perception of learning and were mostly positive with the underlining themes of motivation, improving knowledge content, and creating a positive learning environment. Six studies (Fatima et al, 2017; Ismail and Mohammad, 2017; Jamil et al, 2018; Youhasan and Raheem, 2019; Boylan et al, 2020; Solanki et al, 2020) surveyed students through a questionnaire to identify student perception of learning. Surveys varied from 7, 9, 10, and 15‐item Likert questionnaires with ratings from strongly disagree to strongly agree.…”

“…All 12 articles included in the review were published between 2017 and 2020 (Bhat and Sudeep, 2017; Fatima et al, 2017; Ismail and Mohammad, 2017; Aktekin et al, 2018; Jamil et al, 2018; Calle et al, 2019; Felszeghy et al, 2019; Ismail et al, 2019; Youhasan and Raheem, 2019; Boylan et al, 2020; Neureiter et al, 2020; Solanki et al, 2020). The publications originated from India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Finland, United States, Austria, and Turkey.…”

“…The main educational theory identified in the scoping review described in six studies was active learning (Fatima et al, 2017; Ismail and Mohammad, 2017; Jamil et al, 2018; Calle et al, 2019; Ismail et al, 2019; Boylan et al, 2020) followed by two studies describing social and constructivism learning theory (Youhasan and Raheem, 2019; Solanki et al, 2020). Bauman's layered‐learning model was described in two studies (Felszeghy et al, 2019; Neureiter et al, 2020) and only one study identified Malone's theory of intrinsic motivation as an educational theory (Aktekin et al, 2018).…”