Interprofessional Education (IPE): Strategic Questions

Abstract

Commentary The necessity for inter-professional education (IPE) is obvious (Brandt, 2015; Reeves et al., 2013). However, experience suggests that well-meaning educators attempting to develop inter-professional teams from individuals immersed within disciplinary silos often simply aim to mix individuals from numerous disciplines as frequently as possible. Although there are many examples of activities that can be used to facilitate such inter-professional team development (Frank et al., 2010; Chown et al., 2015; Bridges et al., 2011), as well as the development of conceptual frameworks supporting IPE (Stutsky & Spence Laschinger, 2014), basic questions remain to be answered in this evolving field of research and practice. In approaching this matter it may be useful to remember Kipling's (1902) poem from The Elephant's Child: I keep six honest serving-men (They taught me all I knew); Their names are What and Why and When And How and Where and Who. Interestingly the issue of 'Who' is last in this poem, and we would suggest it has not been a primary focus in IPE circles. Obviously part of the answer to the 'Who' question is health and social care professionals. Beyond that there appears to be a paucity of research and discussion. There are different ways to approach the issue of who should be included, or at least prioritized in IPE initiatives. A common approach is to include the 'willing' , although perhaps this can involve 'preaching to the converted' . Alternatively many initiatives simply progress opportunistically using whatever disciplines are conveniently mutually accessible and available. Another strategy might be to examine all interactions between different disciplines and then focus IPE efforts on those disciplines with the greatest volume of interactions, although perhaps focusing on less common interactions might be equally valid. In contrast it may be possible to quantify and explore critical inter-disciplinary interactions with potentially life-threatening outcomes and focus on these first. A similar and valid approach might be to examine reports from hospital-based investigations resulting from adverse outcomes for patients and identify the inter-professional interactions involved in critical communication breakdowns and focus on these disciplines. Each of these approaches could justifiably be defended. However, we suggest an alternative approach involving a more sociological perspective when exploring the 'Who' question. Drawing on work in the field of social distance (Bichi, 2008; Bogardus, 1925) and sociometry (Moreno, 1941; 1951; 1952) it may be useful to explore