Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 1 (2015) 100e103

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice

journal homepage: http://www.jieponline.com

Short Communication

An innovative interprofessional education program for university

medical, nursing, and social work students learning in teams during
sessions and visits with geriatric mentors
Mario Jacomino, MD, MPH a, Jo Ann M. Bamdas, PhD b, *, Kathryn Keller, PhD, RN c,
Elwood Hamlin, PhD d, Michele Hawkins, PhD e, Shirley Gordon, PhD, RN c,
Joseph G. Ouslander, MD a
a
Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
b
Office of Interprofessional Education, Florida Atlantic University, 777 Glades Road, AD 266, Boca Raton, FL 33433, USA
c
Christine E. Lynn College of Nursing, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
d
School of Social Work, College for Design and Social Inquiry, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA
e
Provost's Office, Academic Affairs, Planning and Budget, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This curricular resource describes a university interprofessional education program involving small
Received 8 July 2015 teams composed of one first year medical student, one to two first year masters of social work students,
Received in revised form and one to two traditional or accelerated nursing students. Case discussions framed by IPE competencies
25 October 2015
take place in a facility on campus with activities to be used with senior volunteer mentors. The main
Accepted 28 October 2015
objective of using the Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice 2011 is because
students have limited knowledge of IPE collaborative practice and little exposure to geriatric populations.
Keywords:
The format includes a blended learning environment to work in teams and debriefing before and after
University medical, nursing, and social work
students
sessions and visits. Students are given pretest and posttest surveys and short reflective writing assign-
Interprofessional education and ments throughout and at the end of the program. A majority of the students agree to strongly agree that
collaborative practice knowledge of IPE increased, teamwork strengthened, and attitude toward seniors changed.
Student's attitudes toward healthy aging Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
IPE competencies

Format with facilitators problem-based cases then debrief. Faculties are

Health care professions recognize that the quality of patient care
improves, if collaboration between disciplines increases.1 In 2011,
our university created a pilot program with two components con-
sisting of three, 2.5 h interactive IPE Developmental Sessions
(IPEDS) and three, 3-h Senior Aging and Geriatrics Education
(SAGE) mentoring visits (see Fig. 1 for model) providing an inno-
vative interprofessional approach to learning. The content of each
session is organized by a group of faculty from each discipline and
the program director. The interprofessional group prepares a stu-
dent and facilitator guide, and develops cases students discuss in
the small groups, which is located in a large facility on campus. A
total of 35 faculty members were involved as facilitators in one or
more of the IPEDS small group discussions, which equals a ratio of
5e6 students per faculty facilitator. Seniors (64) volunteered as
mentors. After introductions and a lecture, the students discuss
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 561 945 2266 (mobile).
E-mail address: jbamdas1@fau.edu (J.M. Bamdas).
trained before each session. This program was designed as part of a
university-wide health profession collaborative. Initially, a steering
committee composed of faculty from the College Medicine, College
of Nursing, and School of Social Work designed the program. Since
all members placed high value on geriatrics, this became the
population to build practical activities. Unique aspects of our IPE
program were to (a) create an experience for medical, nursing, and
social work students to learn with, about, and from each other in a
team about healthy aging and (b) provide older residents with the
opportunity to share their wisdom about aging.
The program is a required activity because of its inclusion within
each college's existing courses. In 2011e2012, the members of the
steering committee organized the activities. In January 2012, a
project coordinator was hired with the support of an outside grant
to assist in developing and evaluating the program. A blended
learning environment was created using Blackboard and Web 2.0
tools (wikis and blogs) for student teams since 1) this platform
would provide the greatest impact to deliver the IPE message2 and
2) Blackboard provided a space for communication beyond the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2015.10.003
2405-4526/Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 M. Jacomino et al. / Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 1 (2015) 100e103 101

Florida Atlantic University’s

Interprofessional Education Program

Interprofessional Education Interprofessional Collaboration

Senior Aging Geriatric Educator Visits

Interprofessional Education (SAGE)
Development Sessions
(IPEDS)

Roles
& Health Care SAGE SAGE
Responsibilities Policy Mentor Mentor Team
Team Visit 3:
Visit 1: SAGE Home/Health
Communication History Safety
Mentor
&
Team Visit
Teamwork
2: Geriatric
Assessment

Figure 1. Florida Atlantic University's Interprofessional Education Program.

face-to-face team meetings. Over the past few years, the literature
has identified blended learning environments as helpful for
problem-based, team-based learning for the reflective practi-
tioner.3,4 Blended learning has become suited to students' team-
work because of scheduling conflicts. In 2013, the coordinator
position was reclassified as a Director for the Office of Interpro-
fessional Education and supported by the Provost's Office.
Target audience
Students were organized into 64 IPE groups of 3e5 team
members. Each group consists of one first year medical student, one
to two first year Masters of Social Work (MSW) students, and one to
two nursing students.
Table 1 shows the student population over four years of the
program.
Objectives
The overall objective of the IPE program was to use the Core
Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice 20115 to
shape the knowledge and skill development among health pro-
fessions' students. The IPEDS components have objectives that are
measured at workshop and year end. IPEDS #1 includes three ob-
jectives: (1) identify the domains/competencies of IPE/IPCP; (2)
Table 1
Population.
describe the professional roles and responsibilities of social work,
nursing, and medicine; and (3) demonstrate an understanding of
possible conflicts and highlights the collaboration when working in
teams. IPEDS #2 has five objectives: (1) describe tools and techniques
from TeamSTEPPS that will enhance communication and team
performance; (2) develop strategies to overcome communication
barriers; (3) demonstrate application of communication tools and
techniques; (4) engage other health professionals e appropriate to
the specific care situation e in shared patient-centered problem-
solving; and (5) engage self and others to constructively manage
disagreements about values, roles, goals, and actions that arise
among health care professionals and with patients and families.
IPEDS #3 has one objective: create a basic plan for an interprofes-
sional care transition program designed to improve care in the
immediate post-hospital discharge period reducing unnecessary
hospital readmissions and associated complications and costs.
The SAGE component serves as a model for collaboration and
communication for student exposure to geriatric residents in
continuing care living communities. Four objectives for visit 1
include: (1) practice interviewing skills to come to know the SAGE
Mentor as a person; (2) identify healthy aging from the SAGE
Mentor's ideas; (3) assess the interaction and performance of the
team; (4) assess the visit for ideas to use in future practice. Two
objectives for Visit 2 are: (1) assess need for an evidence-based
geriatric assessment to identify any mentor's health or personal
needs, and (2) assess the team's interaction. Three objectives for
Visit 3 include: (1) perform a home visit for injury risk; (2) identify
strategies to reduce risk of injury; and (3) assess team interaction.

Year # Medical # Social work # Nursing Total Activity description

students students students

2011e2012 64 47 64 175 IPEDS

2012e2013 64 48 75 187
2013e2014 61 66 75 202 IPEDS #1: roles, responsibilities, collaboration, care, and ethics
2014e2015 64 65 79 208 This session introduces students to the IPE competencies,
Total 253 226 293 772
roles and responsibilities of the three professionals, along with a
102 M. Jacomino et al. / Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 1 (2015) 100e103
framework for conflict and collaboration that can arise in teams.
IPEDS #1 consists of a lecture followed by two case study dis-
cussions. Students consider negotiating several realms of conflict
(communication, roles, patient goals and objectives, values and
ethics, legal mandate, personality, power, and organizational
culture and climate). The session ends with a debriefing
summarizing the key points from the case, identifying group
interaction and take-away knowledge and skills to be used in
practice.
IPEDS #2: communication & teamwork
The session consists of an hour long lecture using the Team-
STEPPS™ evidence-based curriculum program and short videos.6
Students decide on the tools and techniques needed to improve
communication and conflict negotiation while applying them
during role play. The session ends by debriefing the identification of
team performance. Reflection includes moving past viewing the
situation through their own profession's lens to appreciate other's
viewpoints.
IPEDS #3: health care policy & quality
The session includes an overview of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), problems of hospital readmission and care transition,
and viewing Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation videos. Delray
Medical Center (DMC) personnel volunteer to demonstrate
interprofessional team engagement for managing patients. Stu-
dents create a care transition plan of an actual patient hospital
admitted and that avoids readmission where 75% of the patients
are insured by Medicare and has a readmission rate above the
national average. A debriefing allows students to articulate
strengths of the team and take away knowledge and skills for
future practice.
SAGE
In August, all students receive a document of activities that
include the visit objectives and activities to be performed with
team members and mentors, and recommended resources. Stu-
dents must brief then debrief for each visit and complete writing
assignments responding to questions.
SAGE visit 1
The visit focuses on team building between students and
mentors including a tour of the facilities. The facility's leadership
provides an overview of how members interact interprofessionally.
Contact between mentors and students reinforce the program
purpose. In the early years students chose the interview and
debriefing process. In the fourth year, social work students were
required to lead this visit.
SAGE visit 2
Visits 2 and 3 are scheduled by one or two members with their
mentor in spring. Teams need to decide and select which geriatric
assessments to use for identifying health and personal needs. In the
fourth year, nursing students led this visit.
SAGE visit 3
A risk assessment of home environment is made with the
mentor to identify strategies for reducing injury and by reviewing
medicine and side effect(s) with the SAGE mentor. In the fourth
year, medical students led this visit by focusing on patient safety
checklists and education on chronic illness and advanced
directives.
Assessment
The full program measures students' knowledge and skill of IPE,
teamwork performance, and attitudes toward seniors and their
healthy aging. Our Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved
multiple quantitative and qualitative assessments: (1) Paper and
pencil-based pretests and posttests (5-point, low to high, Likert
scale) measuring student's learning; (2) End-of-year survey
gauging student learning. (3) Short questions after visits and
annually showing how the activities and objectives led to the
outcomes. Data was compiled into Excel, reviewed, placed into
Nvivo™ 10 software for analysis, and a thematic analysis created.
The three assessments show: the majority agree to strongly
agree knowledge and skill in IPE developed and the wiki and blog
responses after SAGE visits show the majority agreed that their
awareness of healthy aging grew and would impact future practice
due to improved knowledge and collaboration through practice by
working in teams. The results indicate that the overall purpose of
the program and each of the objectives was met because students'
learning did increase continuously from IPEDS and SAGE
components.
Each year most students' comments point to liking best: 1)
“getting to know my mentor”; and 2) “spending time with students
from other professions.” The IPEDS and SAGE visits are the times
when the team members “come to know each other as col-
leagues.”7 A nursing student said: “Meeting with my mentor … and
seeing how incredibly capable she is … she was a genuine inspi-
ration.” A social work student believed that “listening to the
mentor, who was so knowledgeable and has so much to offer was
great to learn from by listening to the narrative stories.” A medical
student “really enjoyed working with nursing and social work
students. It opened my eyes to the different perceptions and re-
sponsibilities of health care. I liked the emphasis on teamwork.”
Students' learning emerged from one IPEDS to another and then in
SAGE practice visits with both teams and mentors from year to year
and over the four years of the program.
Reviewing the year-end survey data collected show four major
areas that drew students' learning away from the objectives of the
program and needed improvement. The IPED sessions were too
long. In the first year, sessions ran for 4.5 h. The following year, the
sessions were reduced to 3.5 h and to 2.5 h for the last two years.
The second critique identified decreasing lecture time and
increasing group discussion time. Time spent lecturing was
decreased from 1 h to 30 min in the last two years. This was fol-
lowed by 2 h of case discussion and debriefing opportunities. The
third critique pointed to the difficulty with students arranging
SAGE visits 2 and 3 because the mentor had active schedules along
with all team members. Time management became a major chal-
lenge. The fourth critique raised the concern of using only mentors
from affluent socioeconomic backgrounds. In the fourth year, we
partnered with a third facility to recruit mentors from more diverse
socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds.
Evaluation
By triangulating students' pretests, posttests, annual surveys,
wiki and blogs responses, and faculty and staff review during
annual post-mortems and planning committee discussions, the
program evaluation indicates that students' IPE program's overall
purpose and each objective were met. Even though the assessment
methods may seem low level by self-reporting methods, the ma-
jority of the 772 students completing our IPE program have
increased IPE competencies.
The immediate impact of the IPEDS from session to session are
limited. But the data collected over time and unsolicited
 M. Jacomino et al. / Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 1 (2015) 100e103
reconnection by program alumni and continuing Provost Office
support gives evidence of program success. Almost 100% of the
students comment that they enjoy and learn by working with team
members because they acquire the education needed by each,
challenges undergone, and practice terminology differences. Stu-
dents favor actual practice at visits to develop competencies. While
follow-up with program alumni and adding a question as to impact
of the program to the annual surveys is planned for year 5;
nevertheless, alumni report back that they have been prepared and
transfer learning and skills into current work experiences. A recent
question for graduating medical students measured exposure to
other disciplines, which came in at 100% agreement. Nursing
graduates state also that exposure to the IPE program gave a greater
understanding of the job now that employed and part of mem-
bership on a team.
Five major lessons were learned over the program life that
guides IPE program continuous improvement. (1) Leveling students
was the first challenge. Some students had more educational and
practical experiences leading to more contributions to discussions
than others. In year 3 and 4, program leadership made changes that
included selecting students with comparable educational back-
grounds. (2) Students want reduced lecture and increased time for
team interaction. The request was incorporated into years 3 and 4
and part of planning year 5. Rather than didactic communication,
other collaborative learning opportunities promoting student per-
formance and engagement in the blended learning environment
are being investigated. (3) Hiring a program coordinator facilitates
this blended learning environment and key for enhanced structure
and organization. Like students and faculty collaborating with the
program design, the designer(s) needs time and space to reflect on
collaborative efforts, always measuring the delivery system for
increasing levels of educational experiences.8 (4) Selection of the
right facilitator to “buy in”9 to the concept of IPE is imperative. The
facilitator role is to guide the discussion. Facilitators should avoid
presenting a lecture or biases during the small group work. Pro-
fessional development to increase facilitator's skills has proven to
be a challenge with more work needed. (5) Mentors and students
working together has been a success and students value their
mentors.
Wikis and blogs show students enjoy and learn through: (1)
mentors sharing life stories, (2) opportunities for students to
interact with mentor guidance but without direct faculty supervi-
sion, and (3) transfer of knowledge and skills for future practice.
Designers should create time and space for more opportunities for
students to work together and with people in the community
without direct involvement by faculty.
Impact
Our IPE program has influenced the senior mentors, faculty,
students, and community. Other organizations in our community
have asked to become partners, invite our student teams to help,
103
and provide opportunities for our director to counsel, advise, and
speak about the program, and create their own IPE programs from
our model. This program has been repeated sufficiently to draw
meaningful conclusions about its value and it represents an inter-
active IP learning experience that has led to an important outcome
in the development of specific IP competencies and overall growth.
The development of this program over four years shows the sig-
nificance of continually assessing and evaluating the multiple data
collected. The greatest influence beyond the engagement of the
community with us has been the unsolicited comments from
alumni of the program e some of whom have been the most
negative during the program.
Required materials
Core Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice
(2011), Realms of Conflict and Collaboration,10,11 Bio-Psychosocial-
Spiritual Functional Assessment, Effective Interviewing, Geriatric
Review of Systems, Essentials of Clinical Geriatrics (6th ed), Geri-
atrics Assessment Tools for OSCE, Home Safety Checklist for Older
Adults, and Geriatrics Medication Review Form. All forms are
available upon request.
References
1. World Health Organization. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education
& Collaborative Practice. Department of Human Resources for Health; 2010.
Available from: http://www.who.int/hrh/resources/framework_action/en/.
2. Nickol DR. Editorial. Interprofessional education: what's now, and what's next?
J Interprof Educ Pract. 2015;1:1e2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2015.03.008.
3. Bliuc A, Goodyear P, Ellis RA. Research focus and methodological choices in studies
into students' experiences of blended learning in higher education. Internet High
Educ. 2007;10:231e244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2007.08.001.
4. Hutchings M, Quinney A, Scammell J. The utility of disruptive technologies in
interprofessional education: negotiating the substance and spaces of blended
learning. In: Bromage A, Clouder L, Thistlethwaite J, Gordon F, eds. Interpro-
fessional e-learning and collaborative work: practices and technologies. Hershey,
PA: IGI-Global; 2009:190e203.
5. Interprofessional Education Collaborative Expert Panel. Core Competencies for
Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: Report of an Expert Panel. Washington,
DC: Interprofessional Education Collaborative; 2011.
6. U. S. Department of Health & Human Services. TeamSTEPPS: National imple-
mentation. Available from: http://teamstepps.ahrq.gov.
7. Keller KB, Eggenberger TL, Belkowitz J, Sarsekeyeva M, Zito AR. Implementing
successful interprofessional communication opportunities in health care
education: a qualitative analysis. Int J Med Educ. 2013;4:253e259. http://
dx.doi.org/10.5116/ijme.5290.bca6.
8. MacKenzie DE, Doucet S, Nasser S, Godden-Webster AL, Andrews C, Kephart G.
Collaboration behind-the-scenes: key to effective interprofessional education.
J Interprof Care. 2014;28(4):381e383. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820.
2014.890923.
9. Waggie F, Laattoe N. Interprofessional exemplars for health professional pro-
grammes at a South African University. J Interprof Care. 2014;28(4):368e370.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.891572.
10. Barsky AE. Ethics and Values in Social Work: An Integrated Approach for a
Comprehensive Curriculum. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.
11. Barsky AE. Conflict Resolution for the Helping Professions. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA:
Brooks/Cole-Cengage; 2007. Reprinted in 2014 with Oxford University Press.