Our guest blogger is Jill Thistlethwaite, MBBS, MMEd, PhD, FRCGP, FRACGP, a Fulbright scholar, health professions education consultant and family medicine physician from Australia (but originally from the UK). She is spending four months at the National Center exploring evaluation and research methods for IPECP.

The National Center has identified and recruited incubator sites around the country to develop, deliver and evaluate IPECP interventions. The 15 projects spread over 11 states (with 10 new sites pending) have a common theme of linking education and practice so they involve both students (and frequently postgraduate learners) and health professionals. 

On 22-23 September, members from each project met with National Center staff in Minneapolis for two days.  The aim of the meeting was to “cultivate and support a community of scholarship-based innovation in IPECP.” The agenda included short presentations from each incubator location with time for questions and discussions. 

Examples of projects and their research focus include (but are not limited to):

• Whether an interprofessional activity for students involving collaborative case review improves their competence in patient safety (Colorado);
• How interprofessional education (IPE) influences outcomes for patients in transitional and primary care areas (Indiana);
• The creation and evaluation of a faculty development package to assist preceptors in blending live interprofessional practice (IPP) and IPE (Kansas);
• Whether an interprofessionally-developed intervention to improve transition of care processes for stroke patients improves quality of care and the triple aim (Kentucky);
• Whether the cost of care changes with the implementation of interprofessional practice and collaborative practice (IPCP) Michigan);
• The impact of IPECP and teams on client mental health outcomes (Minnesota);
• Electronic health record (EHR) design to enhance collaboration (Oregon); and
• Several more from Pennsylvania, South Dakota, South Carolina and Arizona.

As literature and experience have shown, key factors for success must include buy-in from senior leadership and a fully resourced sustainability plan.  Resources, including financial, are more likely to follow evidence of effectiveness.  Keeping these ideas top of mind, we also grappled with some other topics, including:

• What is a team?
• What is the best way to engage patients, families and communities in planning and feedback?
• How best to ease the tension between a location developing its own innovation and evaluation question to meet pressing local needs and the necessity for some standardization across sites to measure effects and increase the likelihood of transferability.
• Return on investment – or ROI – and the difficulties in costing complex interventions that involve both health and education providers.

As a whole, it was good to be reminded that students affect the patient experience whenever they are in a clinical setting.  Harnessing this power for the good is important, with adequate supervision for students while they have increasing autonomy to prepare them for the transition to “real” practice.

Please share your thoughts on these and any other discussion points relating to IPECP in the forum.  We look forward to reading your comments.