Untitled

Abstract

Interdisciplinary care is a method of providing patient care through a team approach that incorporates the efforts of various health care providers. Studies show that this approach can improve patient care and decrease overall costs to the healthcare system. Despite the evidence for the benefits of interdisciplinary care, there are no well-defined models for training students during their didactic years to become members of an interdisciplinary team. This study utilized an investigator-developed questionnaire to determine the attitudes of administrators of professional schools in the USA toward interdisciplinary education, identified the perceived barriers to interdisciplinary education, examined the extent to which interdisciplinary education is occurring at academic health center campuses, and identified the courses that might best be taught in an interdisciplinary format. Administrators from medicine, nursing, and pharmacy hold positive attitudes toward interdisciplinary instruction. Respondents from nursing and pharmacy hold more favorable attitudes than their counterparts from medicine. Positive attitudes are seen more frequently among females than males, and among respondents from public single and multi-campuses than from private campuses. This study demonstrated that administrators espouse very positive attitudes toward interdisciplinary education, although they perceive the barriers to interdisciplinary education and the courses most suited for an interdisciplinary approach differently. More discussions among administrators of various disciplines may allow barriers to be overcome and allow development of interdisciplinary didactic courses that could test the hypothesis that these courses are more cost effective and more likely to foster interdisciplinary teamwork in the clinical setting.

Barriers and enablers that influence sustainable interprofessional education: a literature review

“…Many of these barriers have been consistently identified across a number of studies (Bosco, 2004;Curran, Deacon, & Fleet, 2005;Gardner, Chamberlin, & Heestand, 2002;Ho et al, 2008;McNair et al, 2001;McPherson, Headrick, & Moss, 2001;Rees & Johnson, 2007;Smith et al, 2009;Steinert, 2005). These studies, however, have investigated barriers in terms of a single program or health profession, thus limiting the generalisability of findings across different domains.…”

“…Access to funding at the Government and Professional level was found to be limited, and difficult to obtain and sustain (Borduas et al, 2006). At the Institution level, HEI are financially stretched and the competition between academic faculties and degree programs for funding further enhances the barriers between health professions (Gardner et al, 2002;Smith et al, 2009). As a consequence, the availability of funding for programs outside the ''accepted'' professional boundaries is reduced or non-existent (Andrus & Bennett, 2006;Gilbert, 2005;Smith et al, 2009).…”

“…However, where a unified integrated approach between stakeholders has been undertaken, and IPE is formally embedded within the allied health curriculum, timetabling is no longer perceived as an issue (Forte & Fowler, 2009;Reeves & Freeth, 2002). Current health professional degree programs are described by some as ''rigid'' as there is no room within the curriculum to include new topics, such as IPE (Curran et al, 2005;Gardner et al, 2002). Students are, however, less committed to enrolling in IPE electives or extracurricula activities as these studies are not perceived as core learning units (McNair et al, 2001).…”

“…Limited faculty support for IPE development initiatives is perceived to indicate an absence of priority and support for IPE (Rees & Johnson, 2007;Steinert, 2005). This perception is further amplified by the lack of rewards available with faculties for staff involvement in IPE activities (Curran et al, 2005;Gardner et al, 2002). Further compounding staff support for IPE is their inability to fully understand the IPE concept and its inherent value (Reeves & Freeth, 2002).…”

“…Three studies attributed this failing to the limited availability of staff development programs provided by HEI (Lapkin et al, 2012;Rees & Johnson, 2007;Steinert, 2005). High workloads placed upon staff by management and the lack of administrative support was seen to further promote negative attitudes towards and the lack of involvement in IPE development (Curran et al, 2005;Gardner et al, 2002;Rees & Johnson, 2007). Further challenges, such as commitment, time and fiscal constraints in obtaining individual disciplines support for IPE have also been documented as barriers to IPE (Andrus & Bennett, 2006).…”