An interprofessional experience preparing a collaborative workforce to care for older adults

Figures & data

Table 1. Interprofessional education geriatrics experience agenda

Day One		Day Two
1:45–2:00	Check in (Learners sign in by discipline).	1:45–2:00	Check in
2:00–2:30	Welcome, Introductions, History, IPE context for older adults, Goals	2:00–2:10	Transition to rooms
2:30–3:00	Modeling Teamwork by Faculty Facilitators Faculty model communication to create list of possible interventions, needs, and care plan prioritization. Learners de-brief observations and reflections.	2:10–3:10	Ice-breaker on Disaster Preparedness* Discuss Case #2 – “Puzzle” format Team Outcome: Interprofessional Education in Geriatrics Worksheet.
3:00–3:10	Transition to rooms	3:10–3:20	BREAK
3:10–3:35	Introductions – Stereotypes and myths	3:20–3:50	Discuss Case #3 – Ethical dilemma
3:35–4:25	Discuss Case 1 – Cross-talk and care prioritization	3:50–4:20	Team Debrief Discussion of teamwork Team Outcome: Interprofessional Teamwork Evaluation Worksheet.
4:25–4:35	Transition to auditorium	4:20–4:30	Transition to auditorium
4:35–5:00	Articulate learning points, Complete Evaluations & Wrap up	4:30–5:00	Complete Evaluation and Wrap up

*Only offered in the 2018 experience.

Table 2. Characteristics of learners responding to optional sociodemographic questions*

Sociodemographic	N	%
Gender ^(n^=503) Male Female	64 439	12.7 87.3
Age group ^(n^=502) 20–29 years old 30–39 years old 40–49 years old 50–59 years old 60 or older	377 88 16 14 7	75.1 17.5 3.2 2.8 1.4
Ethnicity ^(n^=499) Hispanic/Latino Not Hispanic/Latino	29 470	5.8 94.2
Race ^(n^=506) White Black or African American Asian American Indian or Alaska Native More than one race	398 40 50 6 12	78.7 7.9 9.9 1.2 2.4
Previous Work Setting Rural setting^(n^=504) Yes No Urban setting^(n^=501) Yes No	40 464 196 305	7.9 92.1 39.1 60.9
Discipline ^(n^=558) Dental Hygiene Dentistry Medicine Nursing Nutrition Occupational Therapy Physical Therapy Pharmacy Social Work Speech-Language Pathology	42 60 39 43 61 63 63 60 70 57	7.5 10.8 7.0 7.7 10.9 11.3 11.3 10.8 12.5 10.2
Required for Coursework ^(n^=558) Yes No	499 59	89.4 10.6

*Total possible were n = 562, but as the survey was optional, not all learners were required to answer every question.

Table 3. Learners level of confidence that they could play each of the following roles in an interprofessional discussion about patients

Evaluation Measure	N	Baseline Mean (SE)	Follow-up Mean (SE)	Change in Mean (95% C.I.)	p-value for Change^1
I could contribute knowledge from my field of study	560	7.37 (0.07)	8.84 (0.06)	1.47 (1.34–1.60)	<0.0001
I could prioritize plans for our patient’s care	559	6.45 (0.07)	8.33 (0.06)	1.88 (1.73–2.03)	<0.0001
I could lead discussion	557	5.34 (0.09)	8.00 (0.08)	2.66 (2.47–2.85)	<0.0001
I could synthesize the discussion in writing	554	6.21 (0.08)	7.98 (0.08)	1.77 (1.59–1.95)	<0.0001

¹Remain significant after FDR adjustment for multiple comparisons.

Table 4. How learners rated their level of knowledge about the types of services these health professionals could provide to their patients

Evaluation Measure	N	Baseline Mean (SE)	Follow-up Mean (SE)	Change in Mean (95% C.I.)	p-value for Change^1
Dentist	559	6.28 (0.10)	8.31 (0.07)	2.02 (1.84–2.21)	<0.0001
Dental Hygienist	556	5.91 (0.11)	7.91 (0.08)	2.00 (1.79–2.21)	<0.0001
Dietitian	556	5.60 (0.10)	7.99 (0.08)	2.39 (2.19–2.59)	<0.0001
Nurse	549	6.96 (0.08)	8.10 (0.07)	1.14 (0.97–1.31)	<0.0001
Occupational Therapist	550	5.58 (0.12)	8.22 (0.07)	2.63 (2.42–2.84)	<0.0001
Pharmacist	558	6.22 (0.10)	8.48 (0.06)	2.26 (2.07–2.45)	<0.0001
Physical Therapist	553	6.49 (0.10)	8.41 (0.07)	1.91 (1.73–2.10)	<0.0001
Physician	556	7.61 (0.08)	8.48 (0.07)	0.88 (0.70–1.06)	<0.0001
Social Worker	557	5.71 (0.10)	8.41 (0.07)	2.70 (2.50–2.89)	<0.0001
Speech-Language Pathologist^2	404	5.50 (0.14)	8.04 (0.10)	2.54 (2.30–2.78)	<0.0001

¹Remain significant after FDR adjustment for multiple comparisons.

²Reduced sample size as question re: knowledge of the types of services provided by Speech-Language Pathologists was not asked in 2016.

Table 5. Learners rated the importance of the following professionals (Dentist, Dental Hygiene, Medicine, Dietitian, Nurse Practitioner, OT, PT, Pharmacist, Social Worker, Speech/Language Pathologist) in providing health care to older adults

Evaluation Measure	N	Baseline Mean (SE)	Follow-up Mean (SE)	Change in Mean (95% C.I.)	p-value for Change^1
Dentist	557	8.20 (0.07)	9.05 (0.06)	0.84 (0.71–0.98)	<0.0001
Dental Hygienist	554	7.76 (0.09)	8.84 (0.06)	1.07 (0.92–1.23)	<0.0001
Dietitian	558	7.96 (0.08)	9.02 (0.05)	1.06 (0.93–1.19)	<0.0001
Nurse	557	8.93 (0.05)	9.28 (0.05)	0.35 (0.25–0.46)	<0.0001
Occupational Therapist	556	7.98 (0.08)	9.15 (0.05)	1.17 (1.02–1.32)	<0.0001
Pharmacist	559	8.82 (0.06)	9.37 (0.05)	0.55 (0.43–0.67)	<0.0001
Physical Therapist	554	8.28 (0.07)	9.17 (0.05)	0.89 (0.76–1.02)	<0.0001
Physician	557	9.24 (0.05)	9.41 (0.04)	0.17 (0.06–0.27)	0.0015
Social Worker	556	7.66 (0.09)	9.31 (0.04)	1.66 (1.49–1.82)	<0.0001
Speech-Language Pathologist^2	406	6.90 (0.12)	8.69 (0.08)	1.79(1.59–1.99)	<0.0001

¹Remain significant after FDR adjustment for multiple comparisons.

²Reduced sample size as question re: knowledge of the types of services provided by Speech-Language Pathologists was not asked in 2016.

Table 6. Learners level of confidence that, in their future practice, they would know when to refer their patients to the following health professionals

Evaluation Measure	N	Baseline Mean (SE)	Follow-up Mean (SE)	Change in Mean (95% C.I.)	p-value for Change^1
Dentist	555	7.20 (0.10)	8.93 (0.06)	1.73 (1.56–1.90)	<0.0001
Dental Hygienist	551	6.22 (0.12)	8.38 (0.08)	2.16 (1.94–2.37)	<0.0001
Dietitian	553	6.56 (0.10)	8.69 (0.06)	2.12 (1.95–2.29)	<0.0001
Nurse	551	6.60 (0.10)	8.29 (0.07)	1.69 (1.50–1.87)	<0.0001
Occupational Therapist	550	6.27 (0.11)	8.64 (0.06)	2.37 (2.17–2.57)	<0.0001
Pharmacist	555	6.54 (0.11)	8.72 (0.06)	2.18 (1.98–2.39)	<0.0001
Physical Therapist	551	6.99 (0.10)	8.90 (0.05)	1.91 (1.74–2.08)	<0.0001
Physician	557	8.39 (0.06)	9.16 (0.05)	0.76 (0.63–0.89)	<0.0001
Social Worker	551	6.20 (0.11)	8.80 (0.06)	2.61 (2.41–2.80)	<0.0001
Speech Language Pathologist^2	394	5.87 (0.15)	8.39 (0.09)	2.52 (2.27–2.77)	<0.0001

¹Remain significant after FDR adjustment for multiple comparisons.

²Reduced sample size as question re: knowledge of the types of services provided by Speech-Language Pathologists was not asked in 2016.

Table 7. Mean pre- to post-experience overall change and individual domains change

Evaluation Measure	N	Baseline Mean (SE)	Follow-up Mean (SE)	Change in Mean (95% C.I.)	p-value for Change
Confidence in functioning in inter-professional teams (Confidence)	562	6.34 (0.06)	8.29 (0.05)	1.95 (1.83–2.07)	<0.0001
Knowledge of services provided by other disciplines (Knowledge)	562	6.20 (0.06)	8.24 (0.04)	2.04 (1.93–2.16)	<0.0001
Importance of other disciplines in providing health care to older adults (Perspective)	560	8.21 (0.06)	9.15 (0.04)	0.94 (0.85–1.02)	<0.0001
Confidence in knowing when to refer to other disciplines (Confidence)	558	6.72 (0.06)	8.70 (0.04)	1.98 (1.87–2.08)	<0.0001
Average^1 across domains	562	6.96 (0.04)	8.65 (0.04)	1.69 (1.61–1.76)	<0.0001

¹Average of all answered questions; note some learners did not respond to one or more questions.

Table 8. Learner quotations aligned with emerging themes in response to the question: what has been the most meaningful aspect of your participation in the two interprofessional sessions? Learner responses could be grouped into the following themes

THEME	REPRESENTATIVE QUOTES
I learned about other disciplines	I learned about each profession, clearing the air about any myths. I had the opportunity to learn about what knowledge other professions have and how their knowledge allows me to improve what I do in my profession.
I got to showcase my discipline and the scope of my discipline’s practice	It was great to educate others on my discipline. I was so impressed by all of the other students and their passion for both their field and their patients! This experience gave me more confidence in my own knowledge and what I can contribute to patient care.
I have new ideas about what I want my future practice to be like	I feel that wherever I go into practice, I will be able to recommend patients to other disciplines and be able to collaborate more with these other professions as well. On these teams I could trust the expertise in the room to better able to focus on my area of expertise.
I learned what patient-centered care looks like	I enjoyed collaborating with colleagues and realizing how critical a biopsychosocial approach is to patient care. Working in a collaborative setting has been extremely helpful. Seeing the same situation from multiple perspectives has been eye-opening and intriguing. It allows all the pieces of the puzzle to come together with a hopeful outcome at the center of it all.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, KS, upon reasonable request.