Interprofessional service-learning definition.

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the WHO's Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice recognizing the significance of improved quality of patient care, lower healthcare costs and decrease medical errors through the use of interprofessional teams. This concept was embraced by the Midwest Interprofessional Practice Education and Research Center (MIPERC) and its Service-Learning workgroup, through the development of multiple interprofessional service-learning experiential opportunities for area health and medical students. Throughout MIPERC's journey of developing and providing interprofessional service-learning opportunities, we have unsuccessfully sought to find a definition of interprofessional service-learning to assist us in better framing our work. We have found definitions of service-learning and interprofessional learning as well as case examples of service-learning, interprofessional learning, and interprofessional service-learning but, no definition of interprofessional service-learning. Following a review of the relevant literature, we have developed a definition of interprofessional service-learning that we believe is comprehensive and will be of use to other interprofessional service-learning organizations in framing and developing interprofessional service-learning opportunities for their health and medical students.

Employer-based patient-centered medication therapy management program: evidence and recommendations for future programs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a patient-centered employer-based medication therapy management (MTM) program. DESIGN: Randomized controlled study. SETTING: Health promotion program at the University of Michigan from June 2009 to December 2011. PARTICIPANTS: Employees, retirees, and their dependents taking seven or more prescription medications. INTERVENTION: Focus on Medicines (FOM) was a two-visit, patient-centered service with a 4-month follow-up. A comprehensive medication review occurred during the first visit. Pharmacists provided recommendations and a medication action plan at the second visit. The MAP incorporated patient preferences for problem resolution. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient uptake, medication cost, medication adherence, patient satisfaction with treatment, patient reasons for participation, patient satisfaction with the FOM program, drug-related problems, pharmacist recommendations, implementation of recommendations. RESULTS: The FOM program attracted 128 individuals wanting information about their medications and an individualized drug regimen assessment to ensure that their therapy was safe and effective and that all medications were necessary. On average, 3.3 medication therapy problems were identified per patient; most were safety related. Overall, 63% of pharmacist recommendations were implemented. When a prescriber was contacted, 83% of pharmacist recommendations were implemented. A reduction in drug cost for patients and the employer was shown. Patients reported improved convenience in taking medications and rated the program favorably. CONCLUSION: A personalized dialogue about medication use appears to meet a need among individuals taking large numbers of medications. Understanding why patients participate in MTM programs and what program features patients appreciate is useful in designing quality MTM programs.