Saturday, 21 April 2018
Background: Over the past 15 years, the literature on interprofessional education (IPE) has exploded in the field of healthcare disciplines. The rise of interest in interprofessional practice and education is shared by health educators in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States and countries of the European Union (Lewy, 2010). This drive towards interprofessional education cannot be isolated from political and financial factors that affect Western economies (Barr et al., 2011). Literature Review: The needs to address health issues arising from globalization, demographic aging, higher prevalence of chronic illnesses, and rising healthcare costs may create the needs for interprofessional education (Barr et al., 2011; Lewy, 2010). In their article Pfaff et al. (2013) underline the intersecting influences of organizational and individual factors in shaping interprofessional education in higher education organizations. Despite inconclusive evidence between the main elements of interprofessional education and its effectiveness (Reeves et al., 2013), IPE is seen increasingly as an effective way to prepare students of health discipline for future practice in collaborative health care settings. For instance, some authors report that IPE can help collaboration and clinical decision making (Lapkin et al., 2013), enhance quality of care (Wilcock et al., 2009), and increased patient safety (Anderson et al., 2009; Kyrkjebø et al., 2006). IPE seems to be desirable in health programs, yet some individual and organizational barriers may impede its implementation. Interprofessional education implies a reorganization of the structures within curricula and courses delivery. In alignment with previous studies describing the benefits of IPE (D’Amour & Oandasan, 2005; Barrett et al., 2007; Lash et al., 2014; Lawlis et a., 2014; Lapkin et al., 2013; Paul et al., 2014; Robben et al., 2012), Pfaff et al. (2013) recommend that facilitators and barriers to IPE be addressed at the individual, and organizational levels as these systems must work in synergy rather than in opposition to one another. Although IPE is promoted in higher education strategic plans, the translation of these institutional objectives into faculty’s active engagement deserves further examination. Objectives of the study: The objectives of the study were to explore and understand faculty members’ perceptions of knowledge, beliefs, barriers, and needs related to interprofessional education. Research Questions: A cross-sectional survey incorporating closed and a few open-ended qualitative questions was our choice to explore the following research questions: 1) What are the needs of faculty about implementing interprofessional education in their teaching? 2) What are the facilitators and barriers to implementing IPE? 3) What is the level of readiness of faculty members to implement IPE in their teaching? Methodology: With ethics approval, an online survey (National Interprofessional Competency Framework of the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative, 2010; McFayden, Maclaren, & Webster, 2007) was administered to a sample of convenience across four geographical sites. The survey was conducted from June to August 2013 with a recall two weeks after sending the online invitation. Issues of anonymity and confidentiality were addressed. Twenty faculty out of 53 participated in the survey for a response rate of 35%. The survey was composed of 68 items derived from validated and reliable instruments such as the National Competency Framework and the Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS). Data Analysis: Descriptive statistics, Chi-square, and non-parametric correlation analyses were used to explore correlations between age, years of practice, the level of education, years of teaching, and knowledge and readiness for IPE. Results: Results indicates a willingness of implementing IPE within teaching and learning activities. However, the readiness to implement IPE is slowed due to lack of time, lack of knowledge, low self- esteem among faculty members, and teaching workload. Conceptual confusion on IPE, time, and logistics were seen as major barriers. Implications for nursing education: Results also suggest that lack of knowledge about the pedagogical underpinnings of IPE and collaborative teaching affect faculty's level of readiness. Results indicate that individual and organizational challenges remain critical issues to address if nursing is to fully implement IPE in nursing and allied health sciences. Conclusion: A successful and sustainable implementation of IPE requires addressing the lack of knowledge and skills through evidence-based faculty development educational activities.