Impact of an interprofessional medication error workshop on healthcare student perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The integration of interprofessional education (IPE) into health professional curricula is critical to ensuring safe and efficient delivery of patient care. The intent of this manuscript is to describe the results of a pilot study designed to evaluate the impact of a large-scale interprofessional medication error prevention workshop on student perceptions of team-based patient care in the prevention of medication errors. INTERPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION ACTIVITY: Pharmacy, medical, and physician assistant students' perceptions of the role of multidisciplinary patient care teams in preventing medication errors were evaluated before and after participating in a three-hour interprofessional medication errors prevention workshop utilizing a modified version of the validated Attitudes Towards Health Care Teams Scale. DISCUSSION: When comparing student attitudes among the three schools, statistically significant differences in student perceptions across the items and subscales (e.g., quality of care/process and physician centrality) captured in the instrument utilized were identified. Additionally, differences in the responses of pharmacy, medical, and physician-assistant students were found, highlighting the areas where healthcare education can be targeted to bridge the gap in opinion. IMPLICATIONS: We demonstrated an overall positive impact of an interprofessional medication errors prevention-themed workshop on the attitudes of the participating healthcare students. Future directions and research initiatives focusing on the role of IPE and the influence of IPE workshops on team-based performance are indicated to validate the influence of this method of education on the attitudes of post-graduate healthcare trainees and healthcare practitioners.

Impact of Required Versus Self-Directed Use of Virtual Patient Cases on Clerkship Performance: A Mixed-Methods Study.

PURPOSE: To explore how students use and benefit from virtual patient cases (VPCs). METHOD: In academic years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, cohorts of students in pediatrics (Peds), family medicine (FM), and internal medicine (IM) clerkships were allocated to either core required use (CRU) or self-directed use (SU) of MedU VPCs. Outcomes included number and time of case review, student perception of learning from VPCs, National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) subject examination scores, and summative clinical ratings for medical knowledge and differential diagnoses/problem solving. Focus groups were conducted each year. Mean differences were compared by t test. RESULTS: A total of 255 students participated in the study. Mean number of cases completed by the CRU group was significantly higher than that by the SU group (13.9 vs. 3.1 for FM, 16.1 vs. 3.9 for Peds, and 10.4 vs. 1.2 for IM) (P < .001). Student-perceived value ratings of VPCs were similar between groups. Students described VPCs as time consuming but useful for supplementing clinical conditions not seen in person. Mean scores on NBME subject examinations for CRU versus SU groups were not different between groups in any clerkship, nor were there significant differences in the summative clinical ratings for medical knowledge or differential diagnosis/clinical reasoning. CONCLUSIONS: Although VPCs continue to serve an important role in exposing students to clinical conditions not seen in person, the optimal employment of this technology in clerkship pedagogy requires further exploration.