Embedding Meaningful Interprofessional Learning Opportunities: It's Easier Than You Think

Background and purpose: Social work students often practice in inter-professional settings. However, many interprofessional learning opportunities focus on particular topics, which may not be relevant to a sufficient number of students. It can also be challenging to create co-equal learning opportunities where students from all fields of professional education are valued or feel competent. Adding to student challenges are logistical hurdles and disincentives faced by faculty. Here we report an evaluation of a pilot exercise that the authors embedded into their respective courses to provide an enriching opportunity for students that did not add to student or faculty course burden. We report on the impact of this exercise on student attitudes toward interprofessional education (IPE).

Methods: Students from each of three classes in the Schools of Social Work, Law, and Nursing were asked to prepare for and participate in a one-time meeting where they reviewed a bill before the Maryland General Assembly regarding the opioid epidemic. Students were asked to review the bill, portions of all three profession’s codes of ethics, and tenets of interprofessional practice. Prior to commencing the exercise, students were administered the Readiness for Professional Learning Scale (RIPLES), a 19-question instrument in which respondents rate statements on a 5-point Likert scale. We also administered a pre- and post-test Interdisciplinary Education Perception Scale (IEPS) in order to rate students’ progress after the intervention. This is an 18-item questionnaire in which respondents rate statements regarding IPE on a 5-point Likert Scale. 

Findings: Although there are no published RIPLES scores for law and social work students, the group average for our sample (N=15) at 80.2 (SD=9.6) out of possible 95 was higher than reported scores for nursing at (67.7), medicine (66.5), and pharmacy (74.4), indicating that our sample may be more receptive to interprofessional education than their counterparts. Although the small sample size limits the validity of statistical analysis, students’ scores on the post-test IEPS were higher, indicating that their valuation of IPE increased after participating in the exercise. Oral and written reflections, which provided additional anecdotal data, indicated that students came into the exercise with skepticism and trepidation about their own potential to contribute and/or about the value of their counterparts’ knowledge base or skills.  Through dialogue that required them to characterize a concrete and relevant problem and assess possible solutions, they saw greater value in interprofessional collaboration and had a better sense of how it might be carried out in practice. Some students suggested that such exercises should be a required component of all professional education.

Conclusion and implications: IPE efforts should focus on concrete and discrete tasks that requires different types of knowledge, skills, and expertise. Embedding such exercise in required coursework to relieve perceived and actual burdens of IPE can attract more students and can be more easily adapted to profession-specific learning within the regular coursework that occurs before and after the exercise. Such exercises are valuable if they take place in a facilitating environment that dispels misconceptions about and can enhance respect for other professionals.