How do we educate medical students interprofessionally about patient safety? A scoping review.

Medical education has an important role in developing attitudes, behaviors and cultures that support safe care. Increasingly, however, research has argued for a more interprofessional approach to be taken. This scoping review examines the design and impact of interprofessional education interventions involving medical students that focus on patient safety. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL between January 2000 and November 2019. Studies were eligible if they included medical students and at least one other profession, interactive learning, a strong emphasis on patient safety in the learning objectives, and an empirical method of evaluation. Forty-three studies met these criteria and the diverse range of approaches to intervention design and method of evaluation are detailed in this review. We found that interprofessional patient safety education interventions are generally well received by students with knowledge and skill gain documented; several also reported changes in student behaviour. However, the lack of empirically driven study designs, combined with the lack of rigour when reporting, makes it difficult to draw clear comparisons. Future research should address this, and in particular, report how and why the intervention has been designed to be delivered interprofessionally.

Learning from interprofessional education: A cautionary tale.

BACKGROUND: Interprofessional education (IPE) is time consuming to develop and sustain and presents many logistical and practical challenges to curriculum developers. Drawing on findings from an evaluation study of an IPE pilot, this paper brings new insights into both positive implications and potentially negative consequences of delivering large scale IPE. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate a large scale IPE pilot delivered to students in the first year of their training. DESIGN AND SETTING: The IPE pilot took place on campus and was focused on patient safety (human factors). PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 630 first year undergraduates across 10 programmes at a UK university. METHODS: A mixed methods evaluation was conducted comprising a paper-based survey circulated at the end of the taught session followed by uni-professional focus groups (n = 4). Questionnaire data was subject to descriptive statistical analysis and key themes were generated from the focus group data. RESULTS: Three overarching themes emerged from analysis of the qualitative data: Understanding differences in roles, Learning about stereotypes and Unintended perpetuation of stereotypes. CONCLUSIONS: IPE is an important part of the training of all health and social care professionals and the study revealed many benefits of this approach. However, we should be sensitive to the possibility of inadvertently perpetuating negative stereotypes as a consequence of IPE activities. Our work highlights the need for caution when considering the planning and executing IPE activities.