Taibah University

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences (2016) 11(6), 510e519

Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences

www.sciencedirect.com

Review Article

Faculty development in interprofessional education (IPE):

Reflections from an IPE coordinator

Ruby E. Grymonpre, Pharm.D.

University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

Received 29 August 2016; revised 3 October 2016; accepted 9 October 2016; Available online 21 November 2016

Un

Ma

Pee

165

Pro

lice

صخلملا

نيبلخادتملاميلعتلانمٍلكيفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتدعُي:ثحبلافادهأةلقنلاقيقحتيفاماهارصنعتاصصختلانيبينهملانواعتلاوتاصصختلاتاساردلابلغأزكرت.ةسرامملاوميلعتلانمديدجلاطمنلااذهوحنةيفاقثلانيبلخادتلالاجميفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتفصتيتلاةروشنملانيملعتملانمةكرتشمةينهمتاعومجمنيوكتيفةدعاسملاىلعتاصصختلايفءارفسكسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأهبعلينأنكمييذلاربكألارودللةاعارمنودفصو:ىلإةقرولاهذهفدهتو.تاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلالاجمنيبلخادتملاميلعتلايفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتىلعدعاستتايجيتارتساتاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلل”ابوتينام“ةعماجةردابمنمضتاصصختلااهذيفنتمتجذامنىلعءوضلاطيلستو٢٠١٥و٢٠٠٨يماعنيب)ةردابملا(.تاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلاقسنمنمتالمأتميدقتواهمييقتو

يفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتةلماشتايجيتارتساثالثتززع:ثحبلاقرطلخادتملاميلعتللءارفسريوطت:ةردابملانمضتاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلادامتعاجذومنراطإمادختساوةدايقلاىلعبيردتلالالخنمتاصصختلانيبتاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلايفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتحوضوبددحيطاسوألانيبولخادتاكارشديسجتو،رغصلاةيهانتمةسيئرلاهتانوكمدحأك.ةموكحلاوةسِرامملاوةيميداكألا

,ايلمعنيسرامملاريغسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتصرففصومت:جئاتنلاجئاتنتمدُقو,ةيلمعلاةسرامملاىلعةمئاقلاتالاجملايفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأوقبسيتلاعبسلاقرطلاعيمجنكتملنإةيبلاغعمانتايجيتارتساتقباطتو.مييقتلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلايفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتلاهبىصوملاو،اهرشنءاضعأريوطتصرفنإفمييقتلاجئاتنونيكراشملاددعىلعًءانب.تاصصختلالالخنمةمدقملاتاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلالاجميفسيردتلاةئيه

Corresponding address: College of Pharmacy, Apotex Centre,

iversity of Manitoba, 750 McDermot Ave., Winnipeg,

nitoba, R3E 0T5, Canada.

E-mail: Ruby.Grymonpre@umanitoba.ca

r review under responsibility of Taibah University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

8-3612 � 2016 Taibah University.

duction and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access artic

nses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2016.10.006

ميلعتلاصخياميفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأيعوعفريفةلاٰعفتناكةردابملانيسحتلاجميفوتاصصختلانيبينهملانواعتلاوتاصصختلانيبلخادتملا.تاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلاريسيتتاراهممهف

ريوطتةردابميفتذختايتلاتاوطخلانأدجنلمأتلادنع:تاجاتنتسالاالدبلاعفأدودرتناكتاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلايفسيردتلاةئيهءاضعأىلعقافتاىلإلوصولا,ةيلبقتسملاتايصوتلالمشتو.ةيجيتارتسانوكتنأنمهيجوتليرظنراطإينبتو,سيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطتىنعملماعلافيرعتلاةظحالملاىلعةينبممييقتتايجيتارتساثادحتساو,ةنلعملاميلعتلاتاجرخم.تاصصختلانيبلخادتملاميلعتلاتاجرخمقيقحتىدمسايقل

نيبلخادتملاميلعتلا؛سيردتلاةئيهءاضعأريوطت:ةيحاتفملاتاملكلامّلعتلاتاجرخم؛ةيميداكألا؛تاصصختلا

Abstract

le u

Objectives: Faculty development in interprofessional ed-

ucation (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is

an important component enabling the cultural shift to-

wards this new mode of education and practice. Most

published studies describing interprofessional faculty

development focus on facilitating interprofessional

groups of learners without consideration of the much

larger role that faculty can play as interprofessional am-

bassadors. This paper aims to describe strategies that

fostered interprofessional faculty development within the

University of Manitoba IPE Initiative (the Initiative)

between 2008 and 2015, highlight exemplars that were

implemented and evaluated, and offer reflections from

the IPE coordinator.

Methods: Three overarching strategies fostered inter-

professional faculty development within the Initiative:

developing interprofessional ambassadors through lead-

ership training; using an adoption model framework that

explicitly identified interprofessional faculty development

as one key micro-component; and actualizing

nder the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/

R.E. Grymonpre 511

partnerships within and between academia, practitioners

and the government.

Results: Interprofessional faculty development opportu-

nities for non-practice- and practice-based faculty are

described, and evaluation results are presented. The

strategies were aligned with most, if not all, of the seven

previously published recommended approaches to inter-

professional faculty development. Based on the number

of participants and evaluation results, the interprofes-

sional faculty development opportunities offered through

the Initiative were effective in raising faculty awareness of

IPE and IPC and improving perceived interprofessional

facilitation skills.

Conclusion: Upon reflection, the Initiative’s interprofes-

sional faculty development undertakings were reactive as

opposed to strategic. Future recommendations include

reaching consensus on a broad definition of faculty

development, adopting a theoretical framework to guide

the stated learning outcomes, and developing

observation-based assessment strategies to measure the

achievement of interprofessional learning outcomes.

Keywords: Academia; Faculty development; Interprofes-

sional education; Learning outcome

� 2016 Taibah University.

Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open

access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://

creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction

In Canada in 2003, the First Ministers’ Accord on HealthCare Renewal concluded that the Canadian health care

system was no longer affordable and sustainable.1 In 2005,as part of a Pan-Canadian Health Human ResourcesStrategy, Health Canada announced a large funding

commitment to the Interprofessional Education forCollaborative Person-Centred Practice (IECPCP) initiative.2

The overarching goal of the IECPCP initiative was

“changing the way we educate health providers soCanadians will have better and faster access to the healthcare they need when they need it, ultimately boosting thesatisfaction of both patients and health care providers.”2

The acronym IECPCP is unique to Canada, stemmingfrom a recognition that interprofessional education (IPE)is necessary to achieve interprofessional collaboration

(IPC) and that the patient must be central to collaborativepractice. IECPCP is the author’s preferred acronym, as itis the only acronym to her knowledge to describe IPE and

IPC that includes a “P” for the patient.Evidence in support of IECPCP continues to emerge

globally.3 The desired outcome of IECPCP is to modify

behaviours and ways of working together to foster effectivecollaboration between patients/families and their healthand social care professionals, thereby improving healthcare outcomes, safety and quality, service efficiency, cost-

effectiveness, and provider satisfaction.3,4 Academic

institutions and health care delivery organizations haveresponded by exploring innovative strategies to move both

pre-licensure health sciences students and front-line healthand social care practitioners towards interprofessionalcollaboration.

Interprofessional education (IPE) is defined as a teachingstrategy or educational approach where learners from two ormore different health professions learn ‘about, with and from

each other’ for the purposes of achieving collaborative careand improving the health and wellbeing of individuals,families and communities.5 By definition, IPE is grounded ineducational theories, including adult learning theory, case-

based learning, experiential learning, small-group learning,and cooperative learning.6 Consistent with these theories,attributes of IPE include small-group, interactive learning

utilising case-based or simulation formats relevant to realpractice or practice-based (experiential) approaches. Of note,facilitators trained in IPE are reportedly a critical element of

interprofessional learning.6

To date, most published reports relevant to IPE havefocused on the development, implementation and evaluationof innovative interprofessional learning opportunities, with

limited attention given to faculty development in IPE. Aliterature search of papers published between 1980 and 2003did not produce any articles that specifically examined this

topic.7 In a more recent (2005e2010) literature review of 83studies involving IPE interventions, Abu-Rish et al.also noted that, despite its importance, few studies reported

on efforts to prepare, recruit, and retain faculty toassume pivotal roles in IPE.8 The University of ManitobaIPE Initiative (the Initiative) was somewhat innovative in

this regard. The University of Manitoba interprofessionalambassadors have identified interprofessional facultydevelopment as a priority in the Initiative’s guidingprinciples and strategic plan since its inception in 2008.9

The objectives of this paper are to describe the strategiesthat fostered interprofessional faculty development within theInitiative between 2008 and 2015 and to highlight exemplars

that were implemented and evaluated. The paper concludeswith the author’s reflections and recommendations regardingfuture interprofessional faculty development undertakings.

Materials and Methods

Three overarching strategies fostered interprofessionalfaculty development within the Initiative:

� Developing interprofessional ambassadors� Using an adoption model framework to enable the sus-tainable implementation of IECPCP innovations,

including interprofessional faculty development� Actualizing partnerships

Developing interprofessional ambassadors

Within the IECPCP paradigm, faculty have an impor-

tant role as interprofessional ambassadors or leaders whonot only develop and facilitate interprofessional learningbut also advocate for sustainable and scalable IECPCPinnovations at the micro-, meso- and macro-levels within

and between the educational, health and government

Table 2: Attributes of an effective leader.

� Self-awareness

� Visionary with a sense of mission

� Self-regulation

� Committed and motivated

� Decisive, courageous, and honest

� Good communication/interpersonal skills

� Ability to influence peers to innovate

� Strategic and tactical planner

� Networker, team collaborator

� Ability to encourage innovation and facilitate transformation

� Ability to set a direction

� An effective change agent and role model

Source: Negandhi et al.11

Faculty development in IPE512

sectors. The Lancet Commission proposed instructionalreforms to achieve transformative learning in the 21st cen-

tury and graduate health professionals with the requisiteleadership attributes to influence change.10 Effective leadershave the ability to create a shared vision within an

organization, empower others, and foster organizationalculture and values. Table 1 is an adaptation of theIPE coordinator job description (2008e2015), which

outlines the roles and responsibilities of a (full-time)interprofessional ambassador. These responsibilities areclosely aligned with the desired attributes of an effectiveleader, as determined by Negandhi et al. in their extensive

literature review to identify interdisciplinary leadershipcompetencies in health care (Table 2).11

In 2008, fifteen University of Manitoba academics were

invited to participate in the University of Toronto weeklongface-to-face course entitled Educating Health Professionalsin Interprofessional Collaboration (EHPIC�).12 The

overall goal of the course was “to develop leaders ininterprofessional education who have the knowledge,skills and attitudes to teach both learners and fellow

Table 1: Proposed roles and responsibilities of an interprofes-

sional ambassador.

1. With a focus on advancing IPE for IPC, actively network,

collaborate and disseminate within and between:

� academic institutions and health authorities, including

clinical practice environments

� provincial Ministries of Education and Health and profes-

sional regulatory authorities

� national professional regulatory and accrediting authorities

and IPE networks (e.g., Canadian Interprofessional Health

Collaborative (CIHC)) and international IPE networks

(e.g., CAIPE, AIPPEN, AIHC), possibly through theWCC.

2. Ensure that the implementation of IPE at the home university

is proactive rather than reactive and is strategic and coordi-

nated, maintaining its relevance in achieving person- and

family-centred health and wellness outcomes.

� Contribute to the development of a strategic plan to include

a mission, vision, guiding principles, values, timelines and

milestones.

� Contribute to the planning, coordination, development,

implementation, and evaluation of interprofessional

learning opportunities to achieve specified interprofessional

learning outcomes along the learning continuum.

� Serve as the liaison between the home and participating

academic units to ensure that lines of communication are

open, transparent, and proactive.

3. Lead and co-lead the preparation of funding proposals to

support IPE scholarly works when available.

4. Lead and co-lead integrated knowledge translation strategies

through the preparation of reports, publications, scholarly

works, and other dissemination opportunities when available.

5. Serve as a resource for IPE accreditation requirements for

undergraduate and post-graduate curricula.

6. Oversee day-to-day administrative activities associated with

IPE programme development, implementation and

dissemination.

7. Facilitate, assess and provide feedback to interprofessional

groups of learners during non-practice, simulation and

practice-based interprofessional learning opportunities.

colleagues the art and science of working collaborativelyfor patient-centred care”. As a consequence of their

involvement in the course, the University of Manitoba had15 interprofessional ambassadors who had developed thenecessary knowledge, attitudes and skills to advance

IECPCP within both the University of Manitoba and be-tween relevant key stakeholders.

Using an adoption model framework

Although this paper focuses on faculty development inIPE, one cannot overemphasize the importance of using a

multi-dimensional and multi-level approach to advancingIECPCP within and between relevant organizations asopposed to focussing on any single intervention. An impor-

tant deliverable of the Health Canada-funded IECPCPinitiative was the D’Amour Oandasan IECPCP EvolvingFramework (Figure 1). This framework was conceptualizedthrough a comprehensive review of relevant literature,

definitions, theoretical models, determinants, and policylevers and nicely illustrates the interdependency betweeninterprofessional education for collaborative patient-centred

practice.13 It illustrates how the sustainable diffusion ofIECPCP requires change both within and between theeducational and practice domains at the micro- (individual/

team), meso- (organizational), and macro- (system/policy)levels, with efforts aimed at simultaneous engagement andparallel initiatives. The framework underscores theimportance of achieving ‘harmonization of motivations’

within and between all stakeholders to achieve scalable andsustainable programme implementation. In a separatepublication, a group of University of Manitoba

interprofessional ambassadors described in greater detailhow they used the D’Amour framework to guide thesustainable implementation of their IPE innovations.14

Relevant to this paper, faculty development in IPE isidentified as one key micro-component of the D’Amourframework. As IECPCP innovations are developed, imple-

mented, and evaluated, faculty who are responsible forteaching and mentoring health professional learners in theclassroom and practice environments must acquire a new setof knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, skills and behaviours to

advance IPE.

Figure 1: The interprofessional education for collaborative patient-centred practice: evolving framework.

Source: D’Amour.13

R.E. Grymonpre 513

Actualizing partnerships

The D’Amour framework also reminds us that achievingthe desired educational outcomes of an interprofessional

faculty development undertaking requires partnershipswithin and between academia, health care delivery organi-zations, regulators, accrediting bodies, and the government.Within the Initiative, the Interprofessional Faculty Devel-

opment Working Group was established to develop andimplement interprofessional faculty development opportu-nities for non-practice interprofessional learning. Para-

doxically, planning interprofessional faculty developmentrequired ‘interprofessional collaboration for interprofes-sional education’. The Interprofessional Faculty Develop-

ment Working Group engaged thirteen academics fromseven different academic units and a librarian, all of whomdedicated their time and expertise. The names and affilia-tions of all members of the Interprofessional Faculty

Development Working Group who contributed to theseactivities between 2008 and 2014 are listed in the acknowl-edgements section.

Not surprisingly, faculty development for practice-based interprofessional learning proved to be more com-plex than expected, requiring additional partnerships be-

tween the University of Manitoba and Manitoba’s largestregional health authority, the Winnipeg Regional HealthAuthority.14 This partnership was fostered through cross-

representation on key leadership and planning committees

within both organizations, shared responsibility and co-authorship on collaborative care innovations, demonstra-tion and research projects, and joint presentations at senior

management committee meetings. The Initiative’s Inter-professional Clinical Placement Working Group wasestablished involving twenty academics from 13 different

academic units, four representatives from the WinnipegRegional Health Authority, and one student. The namesand affiliations of all members of the Interprofessional

Clinical Placement Working Group who dedicated theirtime and expertise between 2008 and 2014 are also listed inthe acknowledgements section. The mandate of thisworking group was to develop sustainable interprofes-

sional clinical placement opportunities for senior pre-licensure learners (as part of their required clinical place-ment/fieldwork/practicum/rotation) within environments

where practitioners effectively model interprofessionalcollaboration.15

Results

Faculty development for non-practice-based interprofessional

learning

The efforts of the Interprofessional Faculty Develop-ment Working Group led to the development and deliveryof three different faculty development opportunities in

IPE.9

Faculty development in IPE514

Introduction to IPE

This was a three-hour session recommended for all faculty

within all thirteen academic units participating in theInitiative. The sentiment was that even faculty who had nointention of facilitating interprofessional learning opportu-

nities still required a broad understanding of and apprecia-tion for IPE as possible members of curriculum or tenure andpromotion committees and as individuals who might at sometime be asked to ‘trade’ a lecture time slot to accommodate

an interprofessional learning opportunity. The session wasoffered twice per year in January and June.

The learning objectives of this session included:

� To increase knowledge of, driving forces of, and resourcessurrounding IPE

� To learn about the University of Manitoba IPE Initiative� To generate ideas for IPE activities using the Points forInterprofessional Education Score (PIPES) instrument

� To increase knowledge of student-initiated IPE activities� To provide opportunities for faculty from various aca-demic units to network

Evaluations of this session were favourable.16 Theteamwork and collaboration subscale of the revised

Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS)was administered to 24 participants from eight academicunits who attended the June 2011 workshop. The

teamwork and collaboration subscale includes 9 items ratedon a 5-point Likert scale, including statements such as “pa-tients would ultimately benefit if health care students worked

together to solve patient problems” and “learning with otherstudents will help students becomemore effective members ofa health care team”. There was a significant increase in themean score pre- versus post-session, suggesting improved

attitudes towards IPE by faculty participants. Qualitativefeedback was also favourable, with participants noting thatthey learned new information about IPE, appreciated inter-

acting with other professionals, and found the interprofes-sional small-group activity involving the use of the PIPES tobe beneficial in helping them to plan future IPE activities.

How to facilitate IPE

This was a more advanced three-hour workshop designedto prepare faculty to facilitate a specific interprofessional

learning opportunity entitled ‘Learning Health PromotionInterprofessionally’. The session included a general overviewof the Initiative, a didactic session on the attributes and skillsof an effective interprofessional facilitator, and the use of a

student assessment rubric. A detailed facilitator guide tailoredspecifically to the health promotion session was also pre-pared. In particular, participants enjoyed the final component

of the workshop, which used fish bowl and role play strategiesthat allowed faculty to enact the interprofessional healthpromotion session as either the facilitator or a student, with

observer feedback and opportunities for role exchange.Similar to the introductory session, evaluations of the

March and October 2012 offerings of the How To Facilitate

IPE workshop were favourable.17 In this study, 94% of the33 facilitator respondents rated the workshop as eithergood or excellent. After the session, facilitators were askedto complete an adapted version of the Interprofessional

Facilitation Scale (IPFS). The adapted IPFS is a 20-item 4-

point Likert scale survey designed to obtain self-assessments of interprofessional facilitation skills. Over

70% of the 29 facilitator respondents rated 16 of the 19 itemsas ‘good’ to ‘excellent’, reflecting their perceived comfort inthe stated facilitation skills. Nevertheless, the remaining

three items were rated as ‘good’ to ‘excellent’ by only 55e69% of the facilitator respondents. Perceived weaknessesincluded explaining how IPC can enhance patient-centred

practice; asking questions to encourage participants toconsider how they might use each other’s professional skills,knowledge and experiences; and discussing issues related tohidden power structures, hierarchies and stereotypes that

may exist among different health professionals. Only 66%,69%, and 55% of responding facilitators, respectively, ratedtheir skills in these areas as good to excellent.

IP facilitator brown bag session

This one-hour session was offered to academics who hadpreviously facilitated an interprofessional learning opportu-nity and wanted a ‘refresher’ and an opportunity to share

interprofessional facilitation strategies and challenges withother academics.

Figure 2 illustrates the high number of academics who

have participated in the three interprofessional facultydevelopment sessions since 2010. These data suggest that asignificant number of University of Manitoba academics

had at least some awareness of and capabilities in IPE. The2007 number reflected the fifteen academics whoparticipated in the EHPIC� training prior to theestablishment of the Initiative. The two-year timespan with

no faculty development activities reflected the time required bythe Initiative developers to lay the groundwork. Between 2010and 2015, 300 academics participated in the Introduction to

IPE session, 151 participated in the How to Facilitate IPEsession, and 48 participated in the Lunch ’N Share. The dropin attendance in the Introduction to IPE sessions noted in 2012

was because for many of the smaller University of Manitobaacademic units (for example, the Faculty of Pharmacy and theSchools of Occupational Therapy and Physical Therapy), a

point of saturation had been reached, as the vast majority ofacademics had already participated in the sessions. To main-tain the interprofessional diversity of the participants, theInterprofessional Faculty Development Working Group

extended invitations to mostly Winnipeg Regional HealthAuthority front-line health and social care practitioners andsite managers to participate as a form of interprofessional

continuing professional development for credit as required. Inaddition to increasing our participant numbers, this strategyprovided opportunities for teams of front-line staff to attend

the workshop and, guided by the PIPES, brainstorm how theymight offer practice-based interprofessional learning to stu-dents who were completing their placements at their site. Alsoof note, the lower numbers in 2015 were due to the transition

of the Initiative to a new organizational structure in March ofthat year.

Faculty development for practice-based interprofessionallearning

Interprofessional faculty development for front-line

clinical staff was more implicit, ad hoc and site-specific

Figure 2: Number of faculty attending various IPE faculty development sessions.

R.E. Grymonpre 515

and involved those mentoring teams who participated in a

series of interprofessional clinical placement projects be-tween 2008 and 2014.9 Strategies may have includedpresentations by the IPE coordinator and a Winnipeg

Regional Health Authority representative, EHPIC�training, attendance at the Introduction to IPE sessionoffered by the Initiative, and the use of a tool called the

Interprofessional Collaborative Organization Map andPreparedness Assessment (IP-COMPASS).18 Teams werealso provided with a detailed interprofessional clinicalplacement module entitled Interprofessional Practice

Education in Clinical Settings Toolkit, which included anintroduction (definitions and descriptions of collaborativepractice, person-centred care, interprofessional education)

and a detailed guide on organizing and facilitating inter-professional practice-based learning sessions at the expo-sure and immersion levels.19

Table 3 shows the number of students and clinicalenvironments involved in interprofessional clinicalplacements between 2008 and 2014. Cumulatively, 311learners from seven different health professions participated

in interprofessional clinical placements hosted by 16

Table 3: Student and clinical team participation in interprofessional

Number of students Number of disci

2008 (Winter) 26 5 (5 per team)

2010 (Winter) 44 11 (4e8 per team

2011 (Winter) 65 8 (1e6 per team

2012 (Winter) 69 8 (3e6 per team

2012 (Fall) 23 8 (4e5 per team

2013 (Winter) 28 6 (4e7 per team

2013 (Fall) 5 4 (4 per team)

2014 (Winter) 47 10 (2e8 per team

2014 (Summer) 4 4

Total 311 16

different clinical environments situated within seven

different Winnipeg Regional Health Authority health carefacilities. Evaluation reports were prepared for the 2011to 2013 academic years.20,21 Based on evaluations from

participating site leads that were relevant to facultydevelopment in IPE (putting aside feedback regardinglogistical challenges), respondents noted that key success

factors included support and cooperation within the teamas well as from leadership at all levels (site leads, unitmanagers and discipline-specific leads). When asked howeither the University of Manitoba or Winnipeg Regional

Health Authority could help to improve future interprofes-sional clinical placements, team members requested moretraining in interprofessional collaboration and interprofes-

sional facilitation and additional efforts directed atinstitutionalizing interprofessional collaboration such asincluding it in new staff orientations, job descriptions, and

performance reviews. Although the number of students andclinical teams participating in interprofessional clinicalplacements over the six-year timeframe were relatively low,the series of interprofessional clinical placement offerings

enhanced senior management and institutional awareness of

clinical placements (2008e2014).

plines Number of institutions Number of teams

3 (A, B, C) 3

) 3 (A, D, E) 4

) 5 (A, D, G, F, C) 6

) 5 (A, D, G, B, F) 5

) 3 (A, G, B) 3

) 3 (A, D, F) 3

1 (A) 1

) 7 (A, B, C, D, E, F, G) 7

1 (A) 1

7 16

Table 4: Faculty development approaches to promote inter-

professional education.

Faculty development initiatives should:

1. Aim to create change at the individual and the organizational

levels.

2. Target diverse stakeholders.

3. Address three main content areas:

� Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Patient-

Centred Practice

� Teaching and Learning

� Leadership and Organizational Change

4. Take place in a variety of settings, using diverse formats and

strategies.

5. Model the principles and premises of interprofessional edu-

cation and collaborative practice.

6. Incorporate the principles of effective educational design.

7. Consider the adoption of a dissemination model to promote

implementation.

Source: Steinert.7

Faculty development in IPE516

interprofessional clinical placements within seven of theWinnipeg Regional Health Authority’s nine institutions (2

acute care hospitals, 5 community hospitals and 2 long-termcare centres).

Two evaluations of the interprofessional clinical place-

ments were conducted and published.22,23 Using a controlledbefore-and-after study design, the projects examined asimilar research question: Do clinician team facilitation and

mentorship of pre-licensure learners participating in IPclinical placements improve team members’ attitudes,knowledge, skills and perceived behaviours in collaborativeperson-centred practice?22,23 For the first study, although

formal educational interventions were not offered, teamswere provided with a library of IECPCP resources, ahandbook containing background reading on collaborative

competencies, a detailed manual on how to facilitatestudent sessions, and optional facilitator training andobservation of teaming behaviours with feedback using

the Team Observation Scale.22 For the second study,intervention teams received formal team training ininterprofessional collaboration involving facilitated teamdiscussions and reflection guided by their item-by-item

scores on the Assessment of Interprofessional TeamCollaboration Scale.23

Results of both studies found either no significant

changes22 or only a modest impact23 of team training andparticipation in interprofessional clinical placements onmentoring teams’ interprofessional collaborative practice

from pre- to post-intervention. For both studies, the quali-tative data conflicted with these quantitative results, withparticipants reporting perceived value and benefits of inter-

professional clinical placements for both learners and men-toring teams. Feedback related to increased awareness ofinterprofessional collaboration, recognition that health careproviders can do better as well as improvements in their

collaborative practice and mentorship of students. Morespecifically, team members reported using reflection to agreater extent, valuing opportunities to share skills and

engage in collaborative goal attainment, and focussing moreon patients and families.

The findings from these studies led the authors to spec-

ulate that to impact a team’s interprofessional collabora-tion, multi-dimensional approaches are required. Guidedby Donabedien’s quality framework, it is likely that in

addition to interventions addressing a team’s knowledge,attitudes and behaviours relating to interprofessionalcollaboration, interprofessional faculty development ini-tiatives in practice environments need to examine and

address the team’s structures and processes of care.23,24

Two exemplar strategies were proposed to serve thispurpose:

� The ‘Advancing Collaborative Care Teams’ protocolproposed eight indicators to support a team’s transition to

IPC.25 They include setting aside time, sharing space anddefining team goals and role statements. Processesinclude focussing on the patient, measuring and

monitoring team performance, and implementingstrategies for interprofessional care planning.

� The ‘IP COMPASS’ was developed to support teams that

want to improve their IPC prior to hosting interprofes-sional clinical placements.18 The ‘compass’ includes four

constructs: Commitment to IPC, Structures andSupports for IPC, Commitment to IPE, and Structuresand Supports for IPE.

Both tools require the team to set aside time to undertakethe transition, which involves self-study, action planning,

and follow-up, and both strongly encourage the involvementof an external facilitator.

Discussion

The Initiative’s interprofessional faculty development

strategies described in this paper were aligned with most, ifnot all, seven interprofessional faculty development ap-proaches recommended by Steinert et al., as outlined in

Table 4.7 Positive evaluation results provided furtherevidence that our strategies were effective. Nevertheless,the sessions were most commonly developed in reaction to

immediate needs as opposed to being generated from amore planned and strategic approach guided by atheoretical framework. Upon reflection and building upon

the approaches discussed above, three recommendationsare proposed.

Decide on a definition of IP faculty development

At the outset of an interprofessional faculty developmentundertaking, programme planners should come to consensus

on what they are hoping to achieve. As noted by Abu-Rishet al., of the few published reports on IP faculty develop-ment, most focused on the facilitation of interprofessional

groups of learners, without consideration of the much largerrole that faculty can play in enabling and sustaining theIECPCP cultural shift.8 Rubeck and Witzke defined faculty

development as “the enhancement of faculty members’educational knowledge and skill so that they can makeeducational contributions that advance the educationprogramme rather than only teaching within it” (p. 32).26

Steinert adopted a similarly broad definition of faculty

R.E. Grymonpre 517

development as “those activities designed to help educatorsin all settings (e.g., hospital, community, university) teach

IPE and collaborative patient-centred practice in a moreeffective and satisfactory manner and promote organiza-tional change and development” (p. 61).7

Articulate a theoretical framework and learning outcomes of the IP

faculty development undertaking

When accepting a broader definition of faculty develop-ment, consideration then needs to be given to a theoreticalframework to guide the desired learning outcomes of an

interprofessional faculty development undertaking. Figure 3illustrates the four levels within Kirkpatrick’s educationaloutcomes framework and proposes desired educational

outcomes of an interprofessional faculty developmentprogramme along an iterative continuum, from theaffective (reaction) level to cognitive (learning)

development and behavioural change, ultimately leading tomeasurable results.27

� At the affective level, the goal of interprofessional facultydevelopment should be to ensure that faculty believe inIPE and value this educational approach. They must be

genuine in their support for interprofessional learning andreinforce to students that IPE is necessary to achieveinterprofessional collaboration and that interprofessionalcollaboration leads to improved health and wellbeing in

individuals, their families and communities.� Cognitively, faculty should possess knowledge of theoret-ically grounded interprofessional teaching and collabora-

tive practice approaches. In the Canadian context, thismeans that they should be able to articulate the six Ca-nadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative (CIHC)

collaborative competency domains.28 Faculty should alsobe able to describe teaching strategies that foster thedevelopment of collaborative knowledge, skills, attitudes,

and behaviours in learners such as explicitly stated IPlearning objectives and content and the use of ‘teachablemoments’, reflection and debrief.6,15

� Behaviourally, faculty trained in IPE should be able to

demonstrate the unique set of skills required to facilitateand assess interprofessional groups of health professionallearners.

� Faculty trained in IPE should ‘walk the talk’ by rolemodelling appropriate collaborative behaviours in the

Figure 3: Desired educational outcomes of a

classroom, simulation and practice settings and recog-nize when their own personal biases and lack of respectand trust of other professions could lead to role conflict

and an inability to remain neutral.� Consistent with the definition of IPE (learning ‘about,with and from’), faculty should exhibit interprofessional

facilitation skills that foster knowledge exchange and thesharing of professional perspectives among learners;support learners through disagreement, team decisionmaking and the assumption of shared responsibility for

outcomes; and include the use of strategies such assetting aside time for explicit reflection around one ormore interprofessional collaborative competency

domains.� Ongoing learner assessment and the provision of sum-mative and formative feedback are integral to interpro-

fessional learning and the promotion of learnerachievement in the stated competence and capability.29

Faculty should have the necessary skills and tools to

appropriately assess learners and offer feedback topromote further behavioural change in learners.

� Ultimately, the time, effort and resources spent on inter-professional faculty development should lead to observ-

able results.� Faculty trained in IPE should be able to work collabo-ratively with faculty from other health and social care

programmes to plan and develop interprofessionallearning opportunities in the classroom, simulation andpractice settings and contribute to collaborative and

strategic planning of an IP curriculum along the learningcontinuum.

� To support the diffusion of the IECPCP innovation,faculty must also develop the skills to serve as positive

change agents and interprofessional ambassadors.

Assess faculty achievement on stated learning outcomes

For assessment to have perceived value and a true impacton learning (in this case, of faculty), it is important that

interprofessional faculty development offerings have explic-itly stated learning objectives that are aligned with the pro-gram’s desired learning outcomes (capabilities) and, further,

that the educational content and teaching strategies supportlearners in achieving the stated learning outcomes.

n IPE faculty development undertaking.

Faculty development in IPE518

In response to a growing interest in competency-basedlearning and assessment, there has been an emergence of

team-based and individual observational tools to assessinterprofessional collaborative behaviours.29 To date,however, there has not yet been a parallel development of

strategies and instruments to assess the desired outcomesof interprofessional faculty development undertakings.30e32

Currently, the assessment of faculty participants in

interprofessional faculty development programmes hasprimarily involved the use of self-assessment instrumentsmeasuring interprofessional knowledge, skills and attitudessuch as the RIPLS,16 IPFS,17 Interprofessional Team Self-

Concept (IPTSC) scale,33 or feedback and reflection.34

There is a need to develop and use observation-basedassessment strategies that measure the desired outcomes of

interprofessional faculty development undertakings.

Conclusion

The diffusion of an innovation such as IECPCP is com-plex. Academics play a pivotal role in enabling the culturalshift towards IECPCP. Based on the number of participants

and evaluation results, the interprofessional faculty devel-opment opportunities offered through the University ofManitoba IPE Initiative have been effective in raisingawareness and improving perceived interprofessional facili-

tation skills. However, the interprofessional faculty devel-opment undertakings have been reactive as opposed tostrategic. Recommendations include reaching consensus on a

broader definition of faculty development, adopting a theo-retical framework to guide explicitly stated educationaloutcomes, and developing and using assessment strategies to

measure the desired outcomes of the interprofessional facultydevelopment undertakings.

Conflict of interest

The author has no conflict of interest to declare.

Author’s contribution

RG conceptualized the intellectual perspectives presentedin this scholarly work. She is responsible for the content andsimilarity index of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the support ofboth the IP Faculty DevelopmentWorking Group, includingChristine Ateah, Faculty of Nursing (Co-chair, 2010e2012);Laura MacDonald, School of Dental Hygiene (Co-chair,2010e2012; Chair 2012e2014); Francis Amara (Medicine)(2010e2012); Heather Dean (Medicine) (2010e2014); Moni

Fricke (Physical Therapy) (2010e2014); Fiona Jensen(Nursing) (2010e2014); Cheryl Kristjanson (Medicine)(2012e2013); Janet Rothney (Librarian) (2012e2014);Theresa Sullivan (Occupational Therapy) (2010e2011);Jenneth Swinamer (Physical Therapy) (2010e2014); SandraWebber (Physical Therapy) (2012e2014); Leah Weinberg(Physical Therapy) (2010e2014); and RubyGrymonpre (IPE

Coordinator) (2010e2014), and the IP Clinical Placement

Working Group, including Ruby Grymonpre (IPE Coordi-nator) (Chair, 2009e2014); Christine Ateah (Nursing)

(2010e2011); Lorene Belows (Dental Hygiene) (2009e2014);Ethan Bohn (MaHSSA) (2011e2012); Susan Bowman(WRHA) (2009e2011); Kelly Brink (Pharmacy) (2009e2014); Doug Brothwell (Dentistry) (2009e2011); Margaret-Ann Campbell-Rempel (Occupational Therapy) (2009e2014); Amy Cowan (Physician Assistant Program) (2011e2012); Heather Dean (Medicine) (2009e2011); Mark Garrett(Physical Therapy) (2009e2014); Sandy Gessler (Nursing)(2009e2013); Florette Giasson (Social Work) (2009e2012);Liz Harvey (Physical Therapy) (2011e2012); Maxine

Holmqvist (Clinical Health Psychology) (2009e2010);Kathleen Klaasen (WRHA) (2009e2010); Nancy Kleiman(Pharmacy) (2009e2010); Natalie MacLeod Schroeder

(WRHA) (2012e2015); Tara Petrychko (Medicine) (2009e2014); Colleen Plumton (Kinesiology and Recreation Man-agement) (2011e2012); Cathy Rippin-Sisler (WRHA)

(2009e2012); Kelly Senkiw (Pharmacy) (2010e2012); CarlaTaylor (Human Ecology) (2009e2010); Kyle Turcotte(Kinesiology and Recreation Management) (2009e2010);and Andrew West (Respiratory Therapy) (2009e2010).

The author would also like to acknowledge ShyamaNanayakkara for her technical support in the preparation ofthis manuscript.

References

1. 2003 First Ministers’ Accord on Health Care Renewal. [cited

2016 Oct 2]. Available from: http://www.scics.gc.ca/CMFiles/

800039004_e1GTC-352011-6102.pdf.

2. Interprofessional Education for Collaborative Person Centre

Practice (IECPCP) Initiative. Pan-Canadian Health Human

Resource Strategy 2007/08 Report. [cited 2016 Oct 2]. P.8

Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/alt_formats/pdf/

pubs/hhrhs/2008-ar-ra-eng.pdf.

3. [WHO] World Health Organization. Framework for action on

interprofessional education & collaborative practice [Internet].

Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization; 2010 [cited

2016 Oct 2]. Available from:, http://www.who.int/hrh/

resources/framework_action/en/.

4. Health Force Ontario. Implementing interprofessional care in

Ontario: final report of the interprofessional care strategic

implementation committee. Toronto (Canada): Health Force

Ontario; 2010 [cited 2016 Oct 2]. Available from: http://www.

ipe.uwo.ca/Administration/teachings/HFO%20IPC%20Final

%20Report%202010.pdf.

5. The Definition and Principles of Interprofessional Education.

Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education

[cited 2016 Oct 2]. Available from: http://caipe.org.uk/about-us/

the-definition-and-principles-of-interprofessional-education/.

6. Oandasan I, Reeves S. Key elements for interprofessional edu-

cation. Part 1: the learner, the educator and the learning

context. J Interprof Care 2005;(Suppl. 1): 21e28. http://

dx.doi.org/10.1080/13561820500083550.

7. Steinert Y. Learning together to teach together: interprofes-

sional education and faculty development. J Interprof Care

2005; 19(Suppl. 1): 60e75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

13561820500081778.

8. Abu-Rish E, Kim S, Choe L, Varpio L, Malik E, White AA,

et al. Current trends in IPE of health sciences students: a liter-

ature review. J Interprof Care 2012; 26(6): 444e451. http://

dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2012/715604.

9. Interprofessional-planning-interprofessional-education-5-year-

summary. University of Manitoba interprofessional education

R.E. Grymonpre 519

initiative. University of Manitoba; 2013 [accessed Oct 2, 2016]

Available from: http://monkeytreecreative.com/misc/

Interprofessional-Planning-Interprofessional-Education-5-

Year-Summary.pdf.

10. Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T, et al.

Health professionals for a new century: transforming education

to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet

2010; 376(9756): 1923e1958.

11. Negandhi P, Negandhi H, Tiwari R, Sharma K, Zodpey S,

Quazi Z. Building interdisciplinary leadership skills among

health practitioners in the 21st century: an innovative training

model. Front Public Health 2015; 3: 221. http://dx.doi.org/

10.3389/fpubh.2015.00221.

12. Educating Health Professionals in Interprofessional Collabo-

ration EHPIC�. University of Toronto [cited 2016 Oct 2]

Available from: http://ehpic.ca.

13. D’Amour D, Oandansan I. Interprofessionality as the field of

interprofessional practice and interprofessional education: an

emerging concept. J Interprof Care 2005; 19(Suppl. 1): 8e20.

14. Grymonpre RE, Ateah C, Dean H, Heinonen T, Holmqvist M,

MacDonald L, et al. Using an interprofessional education for

collaborative person centred practice (IECPCP) framework for

sustainable program implementation: the University of Man-

itoba experience. Can J High Educ 2017; 47 [forthcoming].

15. Grymonpre RE, Dean HJ, James M, Wener PF, Ready EA,

MacDonald LL, et al. Quantifying interprofessional learning in

health professional programs: the University of Manitoba

experience. Can J High Educ 2017; 47 [forthcoming].

16. Ateah CA, MacDonald L, Amara F, Dean H, Fricke M,

Grymonpre R, et al. Developing a process for faculty devel-

opment in interprofessional education: the University of Man-

itoba experience; November, 2011. Poster presentation at

Collaborating Across Borders Conference III, Tucson, Ari-

zona, USA.

17. MacDonald L, Wener P, Ready E, Heinonen T, Wotton D,

Grymonpre R. Facilitator guide and training session to develop

IPE facilitator competence; June, 2013. Collaborating Across

Borders IV, Vancouver, BC.

18. Parker K, Oandasan I. Interprofessional Collaborative Orga-

nization Map and Preparedness Assessment (IP-COMPASS).

Toronto 2012 [cited 2016 Oct 2]. Available from: http://www.

health.wa.gov.au/wactn/docs/IP-Compass%20Manual.pdf.

19. Interprofessional Practice Education in Clinical Settings.

Introduction. University of Manitoba, Interprofessional Edu-

cation (IPE) Initiative; October 2011 [cited 2016 Oct 2]. Avail-

able from: http://umanitoba.ca/programs/interprofessional/

media/Introduction.pdf.

20. Quality Improvement Report. The Interprofessional Clinical

Placement Project. University of Manitoba, Interprofessional

Education (IPE) Initiative. 2011e2012 report [cited 2016 Oct 2].

Available from: http://umanitoba.ca/programs/

interprofessional/media/REPORT_IPCP_Evaluation_2011-

2012.pdf.

21. Quality Improvement Report. The Interprofessional Clinical

Placement Project. University of Manitoba, Interprofessional

Education (IPE) Initiative. 2012e2013 report [cited 2016 Oct 2].

Available from: http://umanitoba.ca/programs/interprofessional/

media/Report_IPCP_Evaluation_2012-13_d7.pdf.

22. Grymonpre RE, van Ineveld CK, Nelson M, DeJaegar A,

Sullivan T, Jensen F, Booth A. Through teaching are we

learning? Learning through teaching: facilitating interprofes-

sional education experiences. J Res Interprof Pract Educ 2010;

1: 200e217.

23. Grymonpre RE, Bowman S, Rippin-Sisler C, Klaasen K,

Bapuji SB, Norrie O, Metge C. Every team needs a coach:

training for interprofessional clinical placements. J Interprof

Care Published Online [cited 2016 Oct 2]. Available from: http://

www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13561820.2016.

1181611; 13 Jun 2016.

24. Donabedien A. The quality of care: how can it be assessed?

J Am Med Assoc 1988; 260: 1743e1748.

25. Klaasen K, Komenda P, Bowman S. A guide for teams and

facilitators advancing collaborative care [cited 2016 OctMay 2].

Available at: http://www.wrha.mb.ca/professionals/

collaborativecare/files/EXTRAToolkit.pdf.

26. Rubeck RF, Witzke DB. Faculty development: a field of

dreams. P.26. Acad Med 1998; 73(9): S33eS37.

27. Interprofessional Patient Safety and Quality Working Group.

Guide to facilitating interprofessional groups of health profes-

sional learners. University of Manitoba interprofessional educa-

tion initiative. University of Manitoba; 2015.

28. A National Interprofessional Competency Framework. Cana-

dian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. Feb 2010. [cited

2016 Oct 2] Available from: http://www.cihc.ca/files/CIHC_

IPCompetencies_Feb1210.pdf.

29. The iTOFT Consortium, Australia. Work based assessment of

teamwork: an interprofessional approach. Canberra: Australian

Government, Office for Learning and Teaching. Final report

2015. [cited 2016 Oct 2] Available from: https://nexusipe.org/

informing/resource-center/work-based-assessment-teamwork-

interprofessional-approach.

30. Shrader S, Mauldin M, Hammad S, Mitcham M, Blue A.

Developing a comprehensive FD program to promote IPE,

practice and research at a free-standing academic health sci-

ences centre. J Interprof Care 2015; 29(2): 165e167. http://

dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.940417.

31. Anderson E, Cox D, Thorpe L. Preparation of educators

involved in interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2009;

23(1): 81e94.

32. Hall LW, Zierler BK. Interprofessional education and practice

guide no. 1: developing faculty to effectively facilitate inter-

professional education. J Interprof Care 2015; 29(1): 3e7.

http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.937483.

33. Davis BP, Clevenger CK, Posnock S, Robertson BD, Ander DS.

Teaching the teachers: faculty development in interprofessional

education. Appl Nurs Res 2015; 28(1): 31e35.

34. Freeman S, Wright A, Lindqvist S. Facilitator training for

interprofessional learning. J Interprof Care 2010; 24(4): 375e

385. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820903373202.

How to cite this article: Grymonpre RE. Faculty devel-opment in interprofessional education (IPE): Reflectionsfrom an IPE coordinator. J Taibah Univ Med Sc2016;11(6):510e519.