Interprofessional education faculty development survey: Perspectives on IPE and collaborative practice and COVID-19.

The cancellation of in-person classes in March 2020 due to COVID-19 caused a sudden shift in the educational experiences of health profession students enrolled at the University of Michigan (U-M). With the move to remote learning, educators engaging in interprofessional education (IPE) were faced with the challenge of preparing students for interprofessional collaboration from a distance. A survey was designed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on IPE practices and discover educator development needs. Faculty and staff from 10 health sciences schools within the U-M and Michigan Medicine were invited to complete a survey investigating their use of IPE competencies prior to, during, and after the pandemic; their development needs; and their ideas for future implementation of IPE and collaborative practice. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported their ability to teach IPE competencies was impacted by changes related to COVID. There was a significant (p ≤ 0.001) difference between self-report of incorporating IPE competencies prior to and during pandemic and during and into the future across all five competencies. Technology was reported as a challenge when teaching IPE, and a need for future faculty development. Leveraging virtual and case-based learning and increasing collaboration between schools were identified as ideas for future implementation.

A Framework and Recommendations to Recruit and Engage Faculty Facilitators for Large-Scale IPE Events.

AIMS: As integration of interprofessional education (IPE) events gains traction in health sciences, there is an increased need to recruit and train faculty to facilitate student groups from multiple health care disciplines. This report describes a framework used to effectively recruit and prepare faculty as facilitators for a large-scale, one-time IPE event. We detail recruitment strategies, training tools, facilitators' perceptions about the training, and recommendations for future training. PROCEDURES: Faculty were recruited via email to facilitate an IPE student group of 8-10 learners for an in-person, one-time event. Before the event, faculty facilitators received a Welcome Video and Guidebook providing a description of their role, best practices of facilitation, and scripts. On the event day, facilitators engaged in a face-to-face session to familiarize themselves with the Guidebook and best practices. After the event, facilitators received an email to thank them and invite their participation in a survey regarding perceptions of the training. Data were collected on 2018 and 2019 facilitators. Descriptive statistics were calculated for Likert scales or agreement survey items, and thematic analysis was completed for open-ended questions. RESULTS: Over two offerings of the event, 235 faculty facilitators across 10 academic units participated in 2018 and 2019. Most facilitators felt prepared (92.5% average across 2018 and 2019), the Guidebook was helpful (91%), and an increased interest in IPE (78.5%). Written responses indicated engaging diverse students as the main challenge. Fifty-three percent of facilitators in 2019 were newly recruited. CONCLUSIONS: This work demonstrates an effective training program with a hybrid self-directed and in-person approach that adequately prepares faculty to facilitate IPE discussions. Inclusion of academic unit leaders for recruiting and acknowledging faculty facilitation may add value to the IPE event.

The Adolescent Champion Model: Primary Care Becomes Adolescent-Centered via Targeted Quality Improvement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of implementing the Adolescent Champion model, a novel quality improvement program targeted at helping primary care sites become more adolescent-centered. STUDY DESIGN: Nine primary care sites from pediatrics, family medicine, and medicine-pediatrics implemented the Adolescent Champion model. Each site identified a multidisciplinary champion team to undergo training on adolescent-centered care, deliver prepackaged trainings to other staff and providers, make youth-friendly site changes, implement a standardized flow to confidentially screen for risky behaviors, and complete a quality improvement project regarding confidentiality practices. Adolescent patients, staff, and providers were surveyed at baseline, year-end, and 1-year follow-up to assess changes. RESULTS: Adolescent patients' experiences with both their provider and the site overall significantly improved (P values from <.0001 to .004, N = 474 baseline, 386 year-end). Staff perceived an improvement in clinic practices relating to adolescents and in their ability to make institutional and personal change (P < .0001, N = 121 baseline, 109 year-end). The majority of changes were sustained 1-year postintervention. Frequently noted site improvements included: (1) initiating a method to gather feedback from adolescent patients; (2) adding trainings on confidentiality, cultural humility, and using a nonjudgmental approach; (3) updating immunizations at every visit; and (4) training providers in long acting reversible contraception via implant training. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing the Adolescent Champion model successfully helped primary care sites become more adolescent-centered. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effects of this model on patient outcomes.