Interprofessional education in Hungary: Developments and challenges

Abstract

Interprofessional practice as a concept and interprofessional education (IPE) are relatively new to Hungary and there is limited experience, activities and results as yet. However for the last ten years Széchenyi István University in Gy} or in western Hungary, in collaboration with a local organization, the United Institute in Health and Social Care, has been involved in IPE developments. Széchenyi István University was founded in 1968 as a Polytechnic Institute of Transportation and Telecommunication, and has expanded to include professional qualifying courses at graduate and postgraduate levels for social workers, nurses, health care managers and others. The Institute provides residential and communitybased care for older people across a wide range of need in Gy} or and the surrounding area, and employs social workers, nurses and other health professionals, and works closely with local medical services.The University and the Institute had their first experiences of IPE through the ''Further Education Courses for Community Care' ' TEMPUS project 1998' TEMPUS project -2001, with partners in Hungary, England and Germany. The main goals were to develop new approaches to social and health care, for example community care and interprofessionalism. The project enabled the development of new curricula and good practice in learning and teaching. Partner institutions developed pilot courses where professionals could build up small projects for local needs. The TEMPUS project's main achievement was to build an international network of people from a wide range of professions in social and health care, education, local government, etc. (Hume, 2001).Drawing on the experiences of the TEMPUS project Széchenyi István University and the United Institute in Health and Social Care then became partners in the European Interprofessional Educational Network (EIPEN) in 2005 with a remit to develop an IPE network in Hungary and to develop interprofessional courses.

Interprofessional Education for Whom? — Challenges and Lessons Learned from Its Implementation in Developed Countries and Their Application to Developing Countries: A Systematic Review

“…Eight studies [41]–[48] were conducted in the UK; nine studies [13], [49]–[56] were conducted in Canada; two in New Zealand [28], [57] and Norway [58], [59]. Among the selected studies, Australia had one study [28] and so did Singapore [60], Finland [61], Hungary [62], Egypt [25], and Namibia [26]. IPE was conducted in medical universities including teaching hospitals in 30 studies and in other health and academic institutions in eight studies.…”

“…Poor planning [41], lack of coordination and organization [13], [40], [45], [55], and lack of interest or support by administrators [27], [32], [47], [54], [56], [60], [62] were some of the leadership challenges encountered while initiating and implementing IPE. To address leadership challenges, IPE teams should identify committed champions to spearhead their program [41], [45].…”

“…This can result in poor attendance [54], dropouts, and natural death of the program. In some instances, administrators [62] and one school [31] lost interest and lost the driving force behind IPE because they did not believe there would be a positive outcome [38].…”

“…Including such leaders in the program can boost enthusiasm [33]. Training and retraining facilitators and staff can also improve their involvements and enthusiasm [62].…”

“…There are no specific bodies or institutions to accredit such courses yet [36], [39]. This makes IPE seem to be just an additional requirement rather than a serious course for participants [62]. Accreditation of IPE can also help to structure the curriculum in a standardized manner [36].…”