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

Figures & data

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.

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%)

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

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.)