Columbus Publishers

International Journal of Nursing and Health Care Science

Volume 01: Issue 14

Boyce PS, et al.

feasibility, which has been particularly useful during COVID. The model is flexible and not bound by temporal curricular factors, reducing traditional logistical barriers of physical space and schedules while successfully influencing student perceptions in IPEC core competencies [31].

## Facilitators and Barriers of IPE Programs

Upon examination of IPE programs for HHS professions, there are various factors that contribute to or impede successful IPE programs. Barriers to implementing IPE tend to be related to implementation, rather than the curriculum [34]. There are a number of potential barriers associated with implementing IPE activities, including challenges associated with group dynamics, faculty support and training, and, in some cases, inflexible curricula [35]. These barriers mirror what happens in practice: identified obstacles to interprofessional collaboration involve multiple competing priorities, internal politics, miscommunication, lack of leadership to bridge disparate groups and foster trust, and group dysfunction when team members do not collaborate [36].

## IPE Leadership: Building Faculty and Institutional Support

Lawlis and colleagues [37] identified five key ‘‘fundamental elements’’ across stakeholder levels that enhance or inhibit IPE success and/or sustainability: 1) government funding; 2) HEI funding; 3) faculty development programs; 4) HEI organizational structures to support the embedding of IPE into health professional curricula; and 5) staff ownership and commitment across all disciplines involved in IPE programs (p. 4). These fundamental elements involve institutional organizing structures, which are necessary for scheduling, maintaining inventory of IPE offerings, and promoting the IPE program. A survey of schools with established IPE programs revealed that IPE was organized or coordinated by workgroup or advisory committees; individual schools, faculty or syllabi; a center or centralized website; an IPE database, calendar, catalogue; or a staff member [38]. The logistics of a database or calendar are notable as scheduling and cost have been identified as additional barriers to participating in IPE [7].

Schools with established IPE programs also have faculty representatives from the involved disciplines as part of the staff (see McGill University, Penn State, Texas Tech, University of California, San Francisco, University of Texas, & Indiana University). These school websites indicate that the primary responsibility of these faculty is to their programs, but also hold rotating or time-limited appointments to the IPE center.

Faculty development and IPE-specific training is promoted as an imperative to successful IPE programs [37-9]. Involvement of faculty is important in the development, growth, and assessment of IPE in order to implement innovative ideas, represent all disciplines involved, and develop best practices for IPE at each institution. IPE faculty development is essential to provide well-designed, high-quality IPE offerings for students. As such, 28 of 30 universities state that they have IPE faculty development programs in place, many having a variety of different options available [37]. Frequency of IPE faculty development activities included: yearly (10); monthly; (8); once a semester (5); as needed/“Just in Time” (5); online/webinar (4) and quarterly (2) [38]. Faculty development programs are seen as key drivers in addressing barriers to IPE, and facilitating institutional, professional and cultural changes for successful IPE initiatives [37].

## Scheduling and Participation

Scheduling is a common barrier. When scheduling across programs and disciplines, it is most likely that an IPE experience will occur outside of a student’s regularly scheduled class time, which can negatively impact attendance [39]. In a survey of 30 health professions programs with IPE, 73% of programs coordinated IPE scheduling at both the school and university level [38]. Timing of the workshop is important to students. Some expressed a preference for the workshop to run earlier in the semester or during a break so it didn’t cut into their study and assignment preparation. Students also appreciated when IPE scheduling accounted for their regular class time to avoid extra workload on top of their normal week responsibilities [40].

Institutional level barriers include the development and delivery of IPE within the curriculum. The different timetables and varying program calendars for each of the health professional degree programs impact on the scheduling of IPE within different curriculum streams [37]. Scheduling can impact programs differently; what may be work for one may not work for another. Anecdotal feedback suggests that the time of the session also impacted attendance [41].