What and how do students learn in an interprofessional student-run clinic? An educational framework for team-based care.

BACKGROUND: The student-run clinic (SRC) has the potential to address interprofessional learning among health professions students. PURPOSE: To derive a framework for understanding student learning during team-based care provided in an interprofessional SRC serving underserved patients. METHODS: The authors recruited students for a focus group study by purposive sampling and snowballing. They constructed two sets of semi-structured questions for uniprofessional and multiprofessional groups. Sessions were audiotaped, and transcripts were independently coded and adjudicated. Major themes about learning content and processes were extracted. Grounded theory was followed after data synthesis and interpretation to establish a framework for interprofessional learning. RESULTS: Thirty-six students from four professions (medicine, physician assistant, occupational therapy, and pharmacy) participated in eight uniprofessional groups; 14 students participated in three multiprofessional groups (N = 50). Theme saturation was achieved. Six common themes about learning content from uniprofessional groups were role recognition, team-based care appreciation, patient experience, advocacy-/systems-based models, personal skills, and career choices. Occupational therapy students expressed self-advocacy, and medical students expressed humility and self-discovery. Synthesis of themes from all groups suggests a learning continuum that begins with the team huddle and continues with shared patient care and social interactions. Opportunity to observe and interact with other professions in action is key to the learning process. DISCUSSION: Interprofessional SRC participation promotes learning 'with, from, and about' each other. Participation challenges misconceptions and sensitizes students to patient experiences, health systems, advocacy, and social responsibility. Learning involves interprofessional interactions in the patient encounter, reinforced by formal and informal communications. Participation is associated with interest in serving the underserved and in primary care careers. The authors proposed a framework for interprofessional learning with implications for optimal learning environments to promote team-based care. Future research is suggested to identify core faculty functions and best settings to advance and enhance student preparation for future collaborative team practice.

Adapting the McMaster-Ottawa scale and developing behavioral anchors for assessing performance in an interprofessional Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter.

BACKGROUND: Current scales for interprofessional team performance do not provide adequate behavioral anchors for performance evaluation. The Team Observed Structured Clinical Encounter (TOSCE) provides an opportunity to adapt and develop an existing scale for this purpose. We aimed to test the feasibility of using a retooled scale to rate performance in a standardized patient encounter and to assess faculty ability to accurately rate both individual students and teams. METHODS: The 9-point McMaster-Ottawa Scale developed for a TOSCE was converted to a 3-point scale with behavioral anchors. Students from four professions were trained a priori to perform in teams of four at three different levels as individuals and teams. Blinded faculty raters were trained to use the scale to evaluate individual and team performances. G-theory was used to analyze ability of faculty to accurately rate individual students and teams using the retooled scale. RESULTS: Sixteen faculty, in groups of four, rated four student teams, each participating in the same TOSCE station. Faculty expressed comfort rating up to four students in a team within a 35-min timeframe. Accuracy of faculty raters varied (38-81% individuals, 50-100% teams), with errors in the direction of over-rating individual, but not team performance. There was no consistent pattern of error for raters. CONCLUSION: The TOSCE can be administered as an evaluation method for interprofessional teams. However, faculty demonstrate a 'leniency error' in rating students, even with prior training using behavioral anchors. To improve consistency, we recommend two trained faculty raters per station.

Physician assistant students' views regarding interprofessional education: a focus group study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify and report physician assistant (PA) student experiences, learning, and opinions regarding interprofessional education (IPE). METHODS: A series of open-ended questions was constructed and designed to solicit PA students' opinions about the need for IPE, preferred teaching strategies, and implementation methods, using focus group methodology. We used two sets of questions, one for students who had participated in a formal geriatrics IPE experience (n = 12), the other for students who did not have the experience (n = 10). Focus group sessions were audiotaped and transcripts coded. Key themes were identified and ranked. RESULTS: Twenty-two students participated in four focus groups. Theme saturation was reached and six overlapping themes emerged: (1) PA students learned the most about occupational and physical therapist roles; (2) They were surprised at other professions' lack of knowledge about the PA profession; (3) They strongly expressed that IPE should be required early in training; (4) They expressed preference for direct patient care with other health professions students, with trained faculty oversight; (5) They requested diverse clinical settings; and (6) They identified the optimal number of different students in a single IPE experience as four/five. The group exposed to geriatrics IPE noted the critical importance of faculty training for facilitation, while the nonexposed group emphasized the challenge of limited curricular time. CONCLUSION: PA students recognize the importance of IPE and request early, required clinical experiences led by well-trained interprofessional faculty with the option to choose clinical sites. Student preferences should be considered in IPE curriculum design.