Development of a pilot interprofessional education workshop for healthcare students and assessment of interprofessional collaborative competency attainment

ABSTRACT

We describe the development and student evaluation of a collaborative health service provider and higher education institution initiative designed to deliver an Interprofessional Education (IPE) pilot workshop program for healthcare students. The aim was to investigate whether an IPE workshop would result in improved student confidence in self-reported interprofessional competencies using the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Scale (ICCAS) tool. The workshops involved interprofessional student groups working on a patient case followed by a facilitator-led discussion and patient representative interaction. There were three different voluntary, extra-curricular workshops. A total of 99 students registered, from 3^rd to 5^th year undergraduate and 2^nd year graduate entry healthcare programs at a single Irish university in February 2022. Ninety-three post-workshop survey responses showed statistically significant improvements in the ICCAS subscales of Communication, Collaboration, Roles and Responsibilities, Collaborative Patient/Family-Centered Approach, and Team Functioning; Conflict Management showed less change. Students reported positively on the benefit of the patient representative, the workshop format, and the opportunity to collaborate with students from other professions. Our findings indicate that this was a beneficial and effective way to deliver IPE across a range of healthcare professions that led to improvements in self-reported interprofessional competencies.

KEYWORDS:

• Competency
• healthcare undergraduate
• interprofessional collaboration
• interprofessional collaborative competency attainment scale (ICCAS)
• interprofessional education
• patient-centered care

Introduction

Internationally, healthcare student interprofessional education (IPE) opportunities to develop their interprofessional competencies are receiving increasing focus and resources (Reeves et al., 2017). To prepare and encourage interprofessional collaboration in practice, Interprofessional Education (IPE) should be incorporated into the healthcare curriculum (Ford & Gray, 2021). The World Health Organisation (WHO) Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice 2010 recommended IPE as a necessary step in preparing a “collaborative practice-ready” health workforce that is better prepared to respond to local health needs (World Health Organisation, 2010). The highest quality of patient care can be achieved when multiple healthcare professions collaborate with needs of patients, carers, families, and communities (World Health Organisation, 2010).

IPE enables students from various healthcare professions to come together to interact, share information, and learn about each other. Equipping students with teamwork, communication, and collaboration skills before they enter the workforce is considered a key factor in improving patient care and reducing clinical error (J. Thistlethwaite et al., 2015). IPE experiences for students facilitate the development of sustainable collaboration between clinical practitioners and academic educators in the preparation and development of the future healthcare workforce. Development of this academic and clinical partnership will support the evolution of healthcare models over time, with IPE opportunities enabling enhanced team-based working and integrated care (O’Leary et al., 2021).

Background

IPE sessions have been implemented for healthcare students in our institution, University College Cork (UCC) for several years. Most sessions involve two healthcare professions (e.g., medicine and pharmacy, or nursing and medicine) for classroom or patient-facing IPE workshops. One session includes seven professions together for a dementia-focussed IPE session, developed from the success of a practice-based IPE program for healthcare professionals (Jennings et al., 2019). There has been an increasing interest at UCC to develop IPE with several healthcare programs requiring IPE to meet their respective professions’ accreditation standards, and growing support by academic and clinical educators for IPE as a means to develop students’ interprofessional competencies and practice-ready skills.

We report on the development and evaluation of IPE workshops using a Case-Based Learning (CBL) educational approach. The goal of CBL, as defined by a 2012 Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) review, is defined as ‘to prepare students for clinical practice, through the use of authentic clinical cases’. It links theory to practice, through the application of knowledge to the cases, using inquiry-based learning methods (J. E. Thistlethwaite et al., 2012, p. 434). The CBL approach that we adopted fostered engagement of the students, applied a structured learning approach with clear content and tasks outlined, and applied authentic learning scenarios supplemented by patient representative involvement. The CBL approach has been adopted for IPE and is recommended by the 2012 BEME review as an opportunity to introduce interprofessional learning (J. E. Thistlethwaite et al., 2012).

This pilot study was developed as a novel educational endeavor by establishing a project-specific collaboration between the Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services Director (ONMSD), a clinical directorate office within the national health service provider, the Health Service Executive (HSE), and UCC. All schools within the College of Medicine and Health at UCC participated with both the HSE and UCC recognizing the value of IPE to create a practice ready workforce who can work together to improve patient outcomes (Reeves et al., 2016). The project required motivation on the part of academic educators and clinical professionals across a range of healthcare professions to develop a model of collaborative practice to investigate the impact of greater integration of health-service provision and education practices.

Academic and clinical staff collaboration in the development of IPE initiatives has more commonly been reported in the clinical setting between a relatively small number of professions and smaller student groups, with larger campus-based initiatives developed predominantly by academic educators (Jennings et al., 2019; Maddock et al., 2023). IPE development groups, such as that in our pilot project, consisting of both academic educators and expert clinicians from each of the health professions, along with student and patient representation for the development of the workshops, appears to be less commonly reported.

Aim

The aim of this project was to develop, deliver, and evaluate an authentic IPE initiative for healthcare students to contribute to the evidence base for future research and best practices in interprofessional education. The objectives were to develop and pilot IPE workshops focused on teamwork, communication, and collaboration, and to collect student qualitative feedback on their IPE experience, in addition to objective measures comparing their self-reported interprofessional competencies before and after workshops.

Methods

The study is reported using the Replicability of Interprofessional Education (RIPE) tool to ensure reporting quality and detail (Abu-Rish et al., 2012).

Development of the IPE project

A steering committee was convened with 22 members including academic educators (14), clinical practitioners (5), from each healthcare profession in the College of Medicine and Health UCC, the ONMSD, two undergraduate healthcare students, and one patient representative. Academic educators and clinical practitioners involved in existing interprofessional learning and/or clinical site teaching sessions were invited to join the committee to ensure representation from all healthcare professions in the College of Medicine and Health. The committee was co-chaired by the ONMSD and UCC and met approximately every fortnight, for 1 hour, from June 2021 until May 2022 to plan the proposed IPE pilot project and evaluate feedback. The process involved planning the format of the IPE workshops, timetabling, booking on-campus locations, developing the IPE workshop content and format, recruiting patient representatives from clinical practice, developing a student feedback survey, and obtaining ethical approval for the survey.

Three subgroups (ranging from 4 to 8 members) were formed from the committee members, each responsible for developing a case study for the three IPE workshops as shown in Table 1. Each case study was reviewed by the other two subgroups and was developed to include relevant information for each student profession involved in that workshop. Efforts were made to ensure that the case studies were accessible and relevant to the student professions involved, using a CBL approach (J. E. Thistlethwaite et al., 2012). In addition, the case content was aligned with the students’ expected clinical and professional knowledge at their stage of training, as guided by the academic and clinical practitioners involved.

Table 1. Overview of the patient case, student professions, and patient representatives involved in the IPE workshops.

IPE Workshop 1: Case 1_Young adult with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)
Case scenario	A 16-year-old male is reviewed in the Gastrointestinal clinic with a six history of intermittent crampy abdominal pain, diarrhea, history of mouth ulcers. Suspected diagnosis is Crohn’s disease. No significant other medical or social history.
Professions involved	Medicine, Diagnostic Radiography, Nursing, Dentistry, Pharmacy, Public Health.
Patient representative	30–35-year-old female with IBD
IPE Workshop 2: Case 2_Child with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (DM)
Case scenario	A 24-month-old male admitted to hospital with hypoglycemia, resulting from gastroenteritis. The child was recently diagnosed with Type 1 DM and is prescribed insulin. Speech delay and difficulty with gross motor skills reported. The parents are Indian, with English not their first language.
Professions involved	Medicine, Nursing & Midwifery, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Pharmacy, Audiology, Speech and Language Therapy, Dentistry, Public Health.
Patient representative	12-year-old female with Type 1 DM and her mother.
IPE Workshop 3: Case 3_Older adult with frailty
Case scenario	An 88-year-old female with multiple morbidities (including atrial fibrillation, dementia, congestive cardiac failure, chronic kidney disease, ischemic health disease, hypertension, osteoporosis) and polypharmacy was admitted to hospital after a fall, with suspected fractured hip and multiple medical issues. Patient lives at home alone, family expressed concerns about her living alone.
Professions involved	Medicine, Radiography, Nursing, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Audiology, Speech & Language therapy, Dentistry, Pharmacy.
Patient representatives (2)	86-year-old female recently transferred from acute services to a step-down unit. 100-year-old male with several comorbidities and frailty living at home, supported by family.

The patient representatives at the workshops were recruited by clinician members of the steering committee through their networks. They were assigned to a workshop based on having the same clinical condition as the relevant workshop’s main focus. However, it was not feasible to match them to the age or gender of the patient in the workshop case that was developed. The clinician member who recruited them discussed the workshop format and expected contribution with the patient representative prior to recruitment so that they could make an informed decision about whether or not to contribute. They did not have to prepare for the workshop, other than discuss with the clinician member that their expected contribution was to speak for 20 min about their lived experience.

Participants

The IPE workshops were developed for, and offered to, healthcare students in the College of Medicine and Health, UCC. The program was targeted at 3^rd, 4^th, 5^th year undergraduate and 2^nd year graduate entry students in the following disciplinary programs: Audiology, Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing and Midwifery, Occupational Therapy, Pharmacy, Physiotherapy, Public Health, Radiation therapy, Radiography, Speech and Language Therapy. (Graduate entry program students typically have a previous honors degree qualification and entry requirements for this strand vary depending on the program).

IPE workshop recruitment

Participant recruitment was on a voluntary basis, with the extra-curricular workshop open to students from all the above-named professions. Some, but not all, of the students would have had prior IPE experience in their clinical curriculum with one or multiple other professions. Attendance at the workshop did not contribute toward students’ credits or grades. The students were notified of the workshops by their respective steering group representative and UCC media communications. An online registration link was provided, and students selected which workshop(s) they wished to attend. As this was a pilot initiative, not all students in the professions were enrolled, with places allocated on a first come basis at online registration. A representative sample of students from each profession enrolled and were distributed across the three workshops, with 30–35 interprofessional students per workshop. The workshops took place in February 2022, after regular timetabled college hours (17.30–19.30 pm). The participating students were sent a 10 min prerecorded presentation to view in advance of the workshop outlining the aim of the workshop, the purpose of IPE and the workshop format.

IPE workshop format

The workshop format involved refreshments upon arrival as an initial ice-breaker to welcome students. This was followed by a short presentation by a workshop facilitator of the workshop format. Each workshop had three sub-groups of students to reduce the large number (30–35) into smaller groups for the case discussion. It was ensured that each sub-group had at least one student from each profession. The sub-groups ranged in size from 10 to 12 students to ensure that the group size would encourage student interaction and discussion. Each sub-group was pre-assigned to ensure representation, where possible, from all professions attending the workshop. Each interprofessional student group was given a hard copy summary of their patient case and were instructed to discuss a standard set of three key tasks relating to the patient management plan for 45 min. The tasks were:

1. Based on the suspected diagnosis, describe some treatment interventions or plan of care from each profession discipline.

2. Consider the concerns and impact on patient and family.

3. What input is required from members of the interprofessional team in planning discharge?

Each workshop had at least four facilitators (range 4–7) who were clinical and academic practitioners from different professions. All facilitators were members of the steering committee, had been involved in case study design/review, and were familiar with the workshop format and the role of the facilitator as a guide to student learning. Some had previous experience as IPE facilitators. The students were asked to lead their own discussion for each task, with the facilitators checking on progress intermittently. This was to encourage students to interact freely with each other without relying on the facilitator to lead (Ford & Gray, 2021). This was followed by a 15-min facilitator led discussion with the sub-group presenting their response to the tasks and their patient management plan. The facilitator role was to guide and encourage students to interact, manage time, and to respond to any questions. The facilitator led discussion also included the following questions:

1. What roles have individual professions within the multidisciplinary healthcare team in helping this patient and their family?+

2. Is a collaborative patient/family centered approach a good approach to adopt, and if yes why?

3. What are the important elements of team functioning?

Following the case discussion, the three subgroups reconvened for a 20-min patient representative session. A patient representative, relevant to the workshop case as outlined in Table 1, dialed into the workshop by Microsoft Teams platform (Microsoft Corp) video link, due to COVID-19 restrictions at that time, to talk about their lived experience with their condition. This session was facilitated by one of the steering committee members. The students had an opportunity to ask questions of the patient representative.

Research instruments

Ethical approval was obtained to disseminate a pre and post IPE workshop survey to participating students (UCC Social Research Ethics Committee Log 2021–187). The aim of the survey was to compare students self-reported interprofessional competencies before and after the workshop, and to gain feedback regarding their views and experiences of the workshop. The survey instrument utilized for the study was the used the 2017 validated Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Scale (ICCAS) revised survey (Schmitz et al., 2017). This tool was designed to assess the change in interprofessional collaboration-related competencies in healthcare students before and after IPE experiences. The ICCAS was based on a set of interprofessional care competencies, based intentionally upon the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative Competencies Framework (Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative CIHC, 2010). The ICCAS underwent content validation, and a validity study revealed high internal consistency and process validity (Schmitz et al., 2017). The ICCAS tool contains 20 items, rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from poor to excellent (Schmitz et al. 2017). The questions (individual items) in the tool form six subscales which are: Communication, Collaboration, Roles and responsibility, Collaborative patient-centered approach, Conflict management/resolution, and team functioning. The ICCAS was chosen for this study as it is recommended by the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education as an IPE survey instrument to compare students self-reported interprofessional competencies before and after and IPE experience (Archibald et al., 2014; Schmitz et al., 2017). Additional feedback questions on the workshop format, preparatory information, communication, and content were included in the post-workshop survey. The surveys are available in the online supplementary Information and took approximately 15 min to complete.

Before each workshop, one of the academic staff (AF), on behalf of the group, emailed the link to the pre-workshop survey on the Microsoft Forms online platform (Microsoft Corp) to participating students with a participant information leaflet and consent statements. The post-workshop survey link was emailed to students during the workshop, (by AF on behalf of the group), and they were invited to participate voluntarily at the end of the workshop until the survey closed 24 h later. Students were aware that all information was recorded anonymously and there was no advantage or disadvantage to participating in the surveys. Consent statements were included at the start of both the pre and post-workshop surveys; there students could opt to agree with if they wished to participate. They were informed that they could withdraw at any time before the final submission of the survey without consequence.

Data preparation

The data were anonymized and entered into Microsoft Office Excel (2009) by one of the research team who was not involved in teaching or assessment of included students (SK). One member of the research team paired the pre- and post-workshop survey responses and prepared a paired dataset. Pre- and post-workshop data were paired for analysis. If a student attended more than one workshop, only their first post-workshop survey response was paired with their pre-workshop survey, for ICCAS tool data analysis. The Likert-type scale responses were numerated as follows: Excellent = 5, Very Good = 4, Good = 3, Fair = 2, Poor = 1.

Data analysis

Quantitative data

Descriptive participant characteristics were summarized in numbers and percentages. Satisfaction survey responses were summarized in numbers and percentages for each workshop and an overall average score was calculated for all three workshops. Descriptive ICCAS scores using means and standard deviations were calculated for each of the survey items in the pre and post workshop surveys, in addition to the average ICCAS subscale scores. Workshop surveys are reported separately for each of the three workshops. As the clinical case, patient representatives, and student participants were different in each workshop, it was not appropriate to combine the data. We compared the pre and post average ICCAS subscale scores for matched surveys using paired t-tests. Statistical significance was set at an alpha level of .05. RStudio (R version 4.1.2) was used for the analysis (RStudio, 2020). Data analysis was conducted by SK, AF and RY.

Qualitative data

Open-response items were coded by content analysis independently by two authors (AF, RY; Ritchie et al., 2013). The main categories reported were derived through comparing and contrasting items, and grouping of common responses.

The manuscript was contributed to by all named authors.

Results

Participation

A total of 99 healthcare students participated in three in-person IPE workshops. A total of 14 students attended two workshops, and 7 students attended all three workshops. The 7 students who attended three workshops came from nursing and midwifery (2), dentistry (2), pharmacy (1), radiotherapy (1) physiotherapy (1). A total of 770 students would have been eligible to participate, on a first-come, first-served basis, across all the healthcare courses (ranging from 15 to 200 students per profession). There were 93 completed post-workshop survey responses; 71/72 completed the matched pre- and post-workshop ICCAS surveys. All students, except one, completed the pre-workshop survey; the unmatched ICCAS data were excluded from analysis. There were 38 participants at Workshop 1, 29 at Workshop 2, and 32 at Workshop 3. The student demographic details are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Student demographic details of total post-workshop survey respondents and matched pre- and post-workshop survey respondents.

Student Demographics	N = 93 total post-workshop survey (includes entries from students attending more than one workshop)		N = 71 (matched pre- and post-workshop survey based on one workshop attendance)
Course of study	Physiotherapy	19 (20.4%)	Pharmacy	17 (23.9%)
	Pharmacy	19 (20.4%)	Physiotherapy	14 (19.7%)
	Speech & Language therapy	13 (14%)	Medicine	11 (15.5%)
	Medicine	13 (14%)	Speech and Language therapy	9 (12.7%)
	Nursing & Midwifery	8 (8.6%)	Radiography	4 (5.6%)
	Dentistry	7 (7.5%)	Nursing & Midwifery	4 (5.6%)
	Radiography	4 (4.3%)	Audiology	4 (5.6%)
	Audiology	4 (4.3%)	Dentistry	3 (4.2%)
	Public Health	4 (4.3%)	Public Health	3 (4.2%)
	Occupational therapy	2 (2.2%)	Occupational Therapy	2 (2.8%)
Year of study	4^th year undergraduate	38 (40.9%)	4^th year undergraduate	29 (40.8%)
	3^rd year undergraduate	20 (21.5%)	3^rd year undergraduate	13 (18.3%)
	2^nd year graduate entry	16 (17.2%)	2^nd year graduate entry	15 (21.1%)
	1^st year graduate entry	14 (15.1%)	1^st year graduate entry	10 (14.1%)
	5^th year undergraduate	5 (5.4%)	5^th year undergraduate	4 (5.6%)
Gender	Female	73 (78.5%)	Female	56 (78.9%)
	Male	20 (21.5%)	Male	15 (21.1%)

ICCAS pre and post-workshop evaluation

The results of the ICCAS pre and post-workshop total and subscales are presented in Table 3, with Figures 1–3 demonstrating the changes in the subscales after each workshop. All ICCAS subscales demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in student’s self-reported interprofessional competencies (p < .05), except the Workshop 2 Conflict management/Resolution subscale.

Figure 1. ICCAS Subscales mean values pre and post Workshop 1 (Young adult with Inflammatory Bowel Disease).

Figure 2. ICCAS Subscales mean values Pre and Post Workshop 2 (Child with type1 diabetes mellitus).

Figure 3. ICCAS Subscales mean values pre and post Workshop 3 (Frail olderadult).

Table 3. ICCAS subscales and individual measures mean scores (and standard deviations) presented for students based on their pre and post first workshop responses (n = 71 students matched pre and post-workshop survey). For those students who attended more than one workshop, only scores pre and post the first workshop attendance are included. (* p < .05).

ICCAS Subscale and individual measures (ICCAS survey question)	Pre-WP1 Mean (SD)	Post-WP1 Mean (SD)	Difference	Pre-WP2 Mean (SD)	Post-WP2 Mean (SD)	Difference	Pre-WP3 Mean (SD)	Post-WP3 Mean (SD)	Difference
Subscale Communication	2.92 (0.69)	4.12(0.48)*	1.2	2.84 (0.72)	3.52 (0.37)*	0.68	2.58(0.42)	3.98(0.38)*	1.4
Subscale: Collaboration	2.91 (0.89)	4.41(0.41)*	1.5	2.82(0.88)	3.58(0.38)*	0.76	2.67(0.78)	4.26(0.38)*	1.59
Subscale: Roles and Responsibility	2.97 (0.74)	4.26(0.52)*	1.29	3.04 (0.78)	3.59(0.38)*	0.55	2.82(0.60)	4.09(0.35)*	1.27
Subscale: Collaborative Patient-centered approach	2.88 (0.78)	4.35 (0.50)*	1.47	3.03(0.86)	3.51(0.38)*	0.48	2.61(0.73)	4.25(0.52)*	1.64
Subscale: Conflict management	3.27 (0.74)	4.44(0.48)*	1.17	3.39(0.86)	3.39(0.40)	0	3.02(0.57)	4.18(0.39)*	1.16
Subscale: Team Functioning	2.74 (0.94)	4.28(0.61)*	1.54	2.78(0.92)	3.64(0.46)*	0.86	2.47(0.82)	3.91(0.48)*	1.44

In the post-workshop survey, students were asked, ‘Compared to the time before the learning activities, would you say your ability to collaborate interprofessionally is: “much worse now” to “much better now” on a five-point Likert-type scale. After attending one workshop all students reported either somewhat better or much better. Students who attended two or three workshops responded similarly with all reporting either “somewhat better” or “much better.”

Workshop feedback

There were 93 (93/99, 93.9%) post-workshop survey responses completed with feedback reported here; this includes those matched or unmatched with the pre-workshop survey, and students who attended two or three workshops. All students reported that the workshop experience enhanced their knowledge of the role of members of an interprofessional healthcare team. Feedback to survey questions regarding scheduling time of the workshops, relevance of the content to their clinical course and placement, workshop objectives and preparatory presentation, facilitator preparation was all positive and further detail on this is presented in the online Supplementary information.

Qualitative analysis results

A total of 86 respondents (86/99, 86.9%) provided free-text comments when asked for three positive aspects of the workshop. Table 4 demonstrates identified categories of responses identified through content analysis, with associated example responses.

Table 4. Content analysis of open-ended survey items.

Survey item	Overarching categories	Sub-categories	Example responses
Positive aspects of workshops	Patient representative	Valuable insight Patient-centered approach	“Listening to the patient who spoke about their illness in such an informative way. I learned so much from this and felt privileged to be in the room to hear her story” (M-76) “The patient story was eye opening – amazing insight. Hearing about different ideas from other healthcare professions so you know where to refer patients and what services are available … ” (P-56) “Discussing in a group for patient centered care provided best outcome possible for the patient. People from all disciplines giving their input … ” (N&M-5)
	Workshop Design	Interprofessional, Multidisciplinary team (MDT) aspect Interactive Student-led discussion Group size Case design	“Good to learn more about what other disciplines contribute to patient management. Good to practice teamwork and discussing as a team … ” (M-18) “Well thought through, informative, and collaborative in a way that can be difficult to achieve this successfully”(M-27) “Loved the small groups, sitting in a circle. It made it easy to talk”(A-48)
	Range of professions	Exposure to new professions	“Broad range of HCPs I’ve never interacted with” (P-33) “ … .Meeting and discussing case in a multidisciplinary team is such a great preparatory opportunity for the real life setting” (M-22)
	Knowledge/skills	New understanding of roles Increased subject knowledge Increased communication/collaboration skills	“ … A great way to learn outside of the textbooks” (P-23) “Getting to meet other MDT members Increasing my practice knowledge. Developing my IP working skills” (OT-30)
Suggestions for Improvement	Workshop Design	More time for discussion Earlier time of day Smaller group size More advance notice Share ideas among subgroups after discussion Name badges Profession mix in groups	“ … Maybe even an extra 10/15 minutes would have got more discussions.” (P-4) “Allow for more participants, it was very beneficial and would be great if it could facilitate more groups Allow all the groups to share their ideas” (PT-26) “- the groups were quite large, participants might be more likely to speak up in smaller groups … .” (M-41)
	More IPE workshops	Make mandatory Embed in curriculum	“Have more- Should be a part of college modules … ” (N&M-51)
	Range of professions	Involve more professions Profession mix in groups	“Need to get dieticians to be a part. …… Potentially get a student from each discipline in each group (not sure if possible)” (PT-63)
	Information/Resources	Advance preparatory resources Case study in advance Clarification on worksheet tasks Follow-up resources	“It would be better if we could have the materials (the case) before the session so we will be more prepared.” (D-61) “Give some follow up material about the case so that we can understand what each discipline does even if we don’t get to it within the workshop.”(P-7)

(M: Medicine. N&M: Nursing & Midwifery. P: Pharmacy. PT: Physiotherapy. A: Audiology. OT: Occupational Therapy. D: Dentistry.)

One of the main positive points reported of the IPE workshops was the contribution of a patient representative. Many students reported that they found the workshop format, and opportunity to work in an interprofessional group beneficial. The student-led discussion, without facilitators, was mentioned by some as an encouragement for students to speak and discuss the case freely. The initial icebreaker of refreshments and meeting beforehand was noted as a positive aspect of the workshop by some students.

In considering an appropriate mix of professions and the number of interested students, there were 10–15 participants in each workshop sub-group. Two workshops had three subgroups, and one workshop had two subgroups. A small number of survey respondents commented on group size (n = 15), with 13 reporting positively, stating the group size allowed for appropriate interaction and discussion. Exposures to new professions and professions, together with the sharing of knowledge and skills between the professions involved also emerged as positive.

The recommendations made by the students to improve the workshops were mainly to offer more IPE workshops in their undergraduate program, to offer the workshops to more students, and to involve more professions. Workshops were in the evening, with some students believing that an earlier time would be more convenient; others appreciated that changing the time was likely to be difficult to organize for this pilot program including students from several healthcare programs.

Discussion

The findings of this IPE pilot project indicate that this form of IPE was reported by participant students to be beneficial and resulted in increased self-reported confidence in interprofessional competencies. The students highlighted the valuable contribution of the patient representative at the workshop and the opportunity to collaborate with other healthcare profession students on a patient management case. The Centre for Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) in the United Kingdom recommends that IPE collaboration should involve service users/patient representatives at all stages of planning, delivery, and evaluation (Ford & Gray, 2021). The inclusion of simulated patients has been recommended to provide a real-world experience for students (Maddock et al., 2023). An IPE workshop for students from a variety of healthcare professions, with patient involvement and facilitated case discussion, was reported by Christian et al., also reports significant positive changes in all ICCAS subscales by students (Christian et al., 2020).

Our study contributes to an understanding of the social elements that promote optimal learning in IPE. The principles of Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT), whereby new behaviors can be acquired through direct experience and by observing others behavior in a social context, are particularly relevant to our findings (Bandura & Walters, 1977; LaMorte, 2019). The students noted that the ice-breaker at the beginning, and group size, encouraged them to feel comfortable and happy to participate. Building trust and support among students have been reported as an important considerations in a recent realist review of IPE that investigated the mechanisms and resources that contribute to positive IPE outcomes for healthcare students (Maddock et al., 2023). Maddock et al. also found that two novel learning elements were identified as contributing to optimal IPE learning; interdependence (where there is a need for genuine contribution of skills and knowledge from the professions learning together to complete tasks) and embodiment (being immersed in an authentic scenario helps students to feel what it is like to work in their professions (Maddock et al., 2023). Our IPE sessions provided students with a small group, interdependent learning experience using a CBL approach, where all professions had a contribution to make, resulting in a positive educational outcome. This IPE format and approach aligns with the social and contact theory constructs of intergroup cooperation and personal interaction that underpin effective IPE (Maddock et al., 2023). The IPE workshops were received positively by the students, with significant positive gains in all ICCAS subscales, except Conflict Management. Further exploration of an educational theory such as SCT is recommended to optimize the learning outcomes, content and format of future IPE sessions.

Implications for future IPE initiatives

The challenge, as has been noted in many other IPE pilot authors, is to coordinate the timing, location and content of the sessions (Abu-Rish et al., 2012; Prast et al., 2016; Willgerodt et al., 2015). Similarly developed and implemented IPE workshops for a larger student number cohort, with patient involvement, have reported positive gains in students self-reported ICCAS subscales (Showstark et al., 2023). Further development of IPE activities to align specific IPE competencies and learning activity objectives to IPE competency frameworks such as the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) competencies should be considered (Interprofessional Education Collaborative IPEC, 2016; Willgerodt et al., 2015). Investigation of the factors contributing to students’ psychological safety in IPE sessions is worth exploring going forward. In a psychologically safe environment, there is respect for each other’s capability, without fear of rejection for sharing their thoughts (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Our IPE sessions provided students with a clear pre-briefing and de-briefing, clear session tasks, pre-assigned student groups, and students were not observed by a facilitator during their group discussion. All of these factors have been reported as enablers of psychological safety in IPE (Lackie et al., 2023). Our study can be used to inform and assist further research and evidence – based IPE initiatives in pre-registration healthcare curricula. The positive findings with significant gains in students’ self-reported interprofessional competencies support the adoption of comprehensive collaborative development of IPE initiatives.

Limitations

A limitation of this study is that the students self-selected to attend the sessions, which were not mandatory. Evaluation of student feedback from the full cohort of healthcare students as part of the curriculum would be needed to obtain a generalizable evaluation of student perception and changes in ICCAS subscales. If a similar, IPE session is offered in the future as an optional or required curricular activity, engaging with students who do not attend or report positive changes in learning, would be worthwhile to obtain an enhanced understanding of students views of IPE and reasons for nonparticipation. The students self-reported their ICCAS item ability, which may introduce a degree of bias and effort justification resulting in more positive post-workshop responses.

Recommendations

Going forward, consideration should be given on how to integrate IPE into curricula and to develop IPE opportunities longitudinally across healthcare programs. Assessment of IPE education outcomes, student learning, facilitator feedback, and impact of cumulative IPE experiences by applying appropriate research methodology is recommended (J. Thistlethwaite et al., 2015; Willgerodt et al., 2015). It has been recommended that healthcare curricula should align with health services models and enable a dialog between universities as education providers and healthcare settings as experience enablers (J. Thistlethwaite & Xyrichis, 2022). This pilot project presents a unique, reproducible model, demonstrating successful partnership between healthcare practitioners and academic staff, resulting in beneficial learning for the students. The data gathered in our study could be used to refine and continuously develop quality improvements across IPE initiatives in the future.

Conclusion

The WHO and many professional accreditation bodies internationally recommend IPE as a means to prepare a collaborative, practice-ready healthcare workforce. By working together on IPE initiatives, academic educators and clinicians can model collaboration and teamwork which are essential skills for all healthcare professionals. Our study demonstrates that combining the pedagogical expertise of academic educators with clinical expertise can optimize authentic educational content that is effective and engaging. Continued efforts in refining and developing such practices will ensure IPE initiatives continue to support the development of well-rounded and effective healthcare professionals who are equipped to work in a collaborative, patient-centered manner.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2023.2202189

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.

Notes on contributors

Aoife Fleming

Aoife Fleming is Vice Head for Interprofessional Learning, College of Medicine and Health, and Lecturer in Clinical Pharmacy in the School of Pharmacy University College Cork. Her research expertise is in the areas of antimicrobial stewardship, vaccination, medication safety and development of evidence based interprofessional learning initiatives.

Carmel Buckley

Carmel Buckley is an Area Director, HSE South, national Office of Nursing and Midwifery Services, and Adjunct Clinical Senior Lecturer, College of Medicine & Health, UCC. She has extensive nursing and midwifery clinical experience across acute and community services and is a champion of inter-professional learning.

Susan Kamal

Susan Kamal is a postdoctoral scholar at the school of Nursing and Midwifery, University College Cork. She’s a pharmacist by training and earned a MPH at the university of Sheffield and a PhD in pharmacy at the University of Geneva. Her research focuses on medication adherence, biostatistics, implementation and assessment of multidisciplinary healthcare interventions.

Nora McCarthy

Nora McCarthy is a Lecturer in Medical Education, UCC and joint Academic and Assessment Co-coordinator at Mercy University Hospital clinical site. Her research expertise is in the areas of assessment and inter-professional learning.

Caroline Dalton-O’Connor

Caroline Dalton-O’Connor is a lecturer in Nursing Education and is the Director of Undergraduate Nursing and Midwifery Education in UCC. Her research expertise is in the areas of Intellectual Disability, Dementia, Acquired Brain Injury and End-of-Life Care, and Interdisciplinary Education.

Jennifer Daly

Jennifer Daly is a Patient Safety Strategy Coordinator with the South Southwest Hospital Group, previously she was Senior Physiotherapist in Mercy University Hospital and Physiotherapy Practice Tutor with students from the physiotherapy programme in the University of Limerick. She has a keen interest in improving patient safety using education and quality improvement methodologies.

Maria Roura

Maria Roura is Senior Lecturer in Public Health, School of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health. Her research expertise is in the field of qualitative research and global health.

Mairead Harding

Mairead Harding is Professor of Dental Public Health and Preventive Dentistry at Cork University Dental School and Hospital, and Director of the Masters in Dental Public Health programme. Her areas of research involve population strategies for the prevention of tooth decay, epidemiology and measurement.

Teresa Wills

Teresa Wills is a lecturer in Nursing Education in UCC. Her research expertise is in the areas of older adult, academic writing, and interdisciplinary education.

Olivia Wall

Olivia Wall is a Senior Occupational Therapist in Cork Kerry Community Healthcare. She also works as an Occupational Therapy Practice Tutor with students from the Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy programme in University College Cork. She has a keen interest in using quality improvement methodologies to enhance healthcare services for staff and clients.

Rena Young

Rena Young is Practice Education Coordinator for Radiography in the School of Medicine, University College Cork. Her research interests are in the areas of health professions’ education and radiation dose optimisation in CT imaging.