Student Reflections on Interprofessional Education: Moving from Concepts to Collaboration.

PURPOSE: We analyzed student reflection essays to evaluate the impact of an interprofessional education (IPE) curriculum on what students value and personally learn from their participation. METHODS: After completing a 2-year IPE curriculum in the Health Mentors Program (HMP), while partnered with a mentor with chronic disease(s), 264 students from six health professions submitted personal reflection papers, using the Rolfe Reflection-in-Action model. A sample of 60 essays was analyzed using conventional content analysis guided by grounded theory. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed 15 themes and 14 subthemes in the essays. The themes and subthemes were organized into four main categories: program, mentor, team, and self. Most students viewed the HMP curricular design positively. In particular, they cited the team-based home visit as a critical piece in changing their perceptions of the impact of chronic disease on their health mentor. Mentors' positive attitude and approach toward life also had a profound impact on students. Approximately half of the students identified positive team dynamics as a key component for optimal patient care and better health outcomes, noting improved understanding of team members' professional roles and responsibilities after working together in this longitudinal IPE program. The "self" category had the highest frequency count, with students describing positive changes in self-assessed knowledge, skills, and attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that reflective writing is an effective exercise through which students can explore their attitudes toward IPE and team-based care of individuals with chronic diseases. After participation in this IPE curriculum, students identified having an improved understanding of collaborative practice goals, indicative of meeting an IPE core competency, and described a new understanding of patient-centeredness.

Do we pay our community preceptors? Results from a CERA clerkship directors' survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Family medicine clerkships depend heavily on community-based family physician preceptors to teach medical students. These preceptors have traditionally been unpaid, but in recent years some clerkships have started to pay preceptors. This study determines trends in the number and geographic region of programs that pay their community preceptors, identifies reasons programs pay or do not pay, and investigates perceived advantages and disadvantages of payment. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, electronic survey of 134 family medicine clerkship directors at allopathic US medical schools. RESULTS: The response rate was 62% (83/132 clerkship directors). Nineteen of these (23%) currently pay community preceptors, 11 of whom are located in either New England or the South Atlantic region. Sixty-three percent of programs who pay report that their community preceptors are also paid for teaching other learners, compared to 32% of those programs who do not pay. Paying respondents displayed more positive attitudes toward paying community preceptors, though a majority of non-paying respondents indicated they would pay if they had the financial resources. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of clerkships do not pay their community preceptors to teach medical students, but competition from other learners may drive more medical schools to consider payment to help with preceptor recruitment and retention. Medical schools located in regions where there is competition for community preceptors from other medical and non-medical schools may need to consider paying preceptors as part of recruitment and retention efforts.