1. Kelly M. Everard, PhD Sonia Crandall, PhD Amy Blue, PhD Fred Rottnek, MD David Pole, MPH Chip Mainous, PhD

2.  The need for Interprofessional education (IPE) to improve teamwork skills: ◦ Institute of Medicine ◦ Association of American Medical Colleges ◦ Liaison Committee on Medical Education  “The core curriculum of a medical education program must prepare medical students to function collaboratively on health care teams that include other health professionals.”

3.  Interprofessional Education (IPE) ◦ two or more professions learn about, from, and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes

4.  Survey was conducted as part of the Council of Academic Family Medicine Educational Research Alliance (CERA)  FM clerkship directors at allopathic medical schools  IRB approval from the American Academy of Family Physicians

5.  For those doing IPE we asked about: ◦ Health professions students participating ◦ Health professionals teaching ◦ Outcomes measured ◦ Educational methods used ◦ Barriers encountered implementing IPE

6.  Compared clerkships providing IPE to those not providing IPE  Examined structural factors ◦ Size of med school, length of clerkship  Attitudinal factors ◦ Importance of third party funding ◦ Interprofessional team training for practitioners ◦ Dedicated time during clinical care for team meetings ◦ Clearly defined roles within the team

7.  134 surveys sent  88 returned for 66% response rate Public medical schools67% (59) Mandatory clerkship97% (85) Clerkship in one block91% (80) Clerkship during third year99% (87) 4 to 6 weeks81% (64)

8. Not at all important Somewhat important Very important Third party funding 14.5% (12) 51.8% (43) 33.7% (28) Interprofessional team training for practitioners 5.9% (5) 52.9% (45) 41.2% (35) Dedicated time during clinical care for team meetings 7.1% (6) 38.1% (32) 54.8% (46) Clearly defined roles within the team 5.9% (5) 35.2% (31) 55.7% (49) N=88

9.  38% (33) offered IPE in clerkship IPE in clinical training91% IPE in didactics49% Both46% Offered faculty development33% Measured IPE outcomes (knowledge of roles and responsibilities, attitudes toward interprofessional care, and teamwork skills) 49%

10. Lectures49% Case-based learning29% Case review26% OCSE20% Seminars17% Morbidity and Mortality conferences17% Grand rounds14% Standardized patients9%

11. StudentsTeachers Medicine100%83% Pharmacy51% Nursing43%57% Social work31%34% Physician assistant29%31% Physical therapy17%9% Dietetics14%100% Public Health9%20%

12. Scheduling conflicts46% Lack of IPE experience among faculty40% Lack of perceived IPE value34% Lack of physical space29% Lack of IPCP sites17% Rigid curriculum11% Turf wars11% Faculty resistance9% Lack of institutional support0

13.  Clerkship directors who offered IPE in their clerkships were no different from those who did not offer IPE in their belief of the importance of: ◦ Importance of third party funding ◦ IPE training for practitioners ◦ Dedicated time during clinical care ◦ Clearly defined roles

14.  Clerkships with IPE were not different from clerkships without IPE in terms of: ◦ Class size ◦ Length of clerkship  Clerkship directors with 20% time or less for clerkship administration were more likely to offer IPE than those with more than 20% time (28% vs. 8%)

15.  Clerkship directors see the importance of IPE and face no institutional resistance  IPE is not present in many family medicine clerkships  Scheduling and lack of IPE experience are barriers  Family medicine is in a good position to offer IPE, but we need faculty development for IPE