Display options
Cite
Smith KM, Scott DR, Barner JC, et al. Interprofessional education in six US colleges of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009;73(4):61doi: 10.5688/aj730461.
Smith, K. M., Scott, D. R., Barner, J. C., Dehart, R. M., Scott, J. D., & Martin, S. J. (2009). Interprofessional education in six US colleges of pharmacy. American journal of pharmaceutical education, 73(4), 61. https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730461
Smith, Kelly M, et al. "Interprofessional education in six US colleges of pharmacy." American journal of pharmaceutical education vol. 73,4 (2009): 61. doi: https://doi.org/10.5688/aj730461
Smith KM, Scott DR, Barner JC, Dehart RM, Scott JD, Martin SJ. Interprofessional education in six US colleges of pharmacy. Am J Pharm Educ. 2009 Jul 10;73(4):61. doi: 10.5688/aj730461. PMID: 19657494; PMCID: PMC2720357.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am J Pharm Educ. 2009 Jul 10;73(4):61. doi: 10.5688/aj730461.

Interprofessional education in six US colleges of pharmacy.

American journal of pharmaceutical education

Kelly M Smith, Doneka R Scott, Jamie C Barner, Renee M Dehart, James D Scott, Steven J Martin

Affiliations

  1. University of Kentucky College of Pharmacy, Lexington, KY 40536-0082, USA. [email protected]

PMID: 19657494 PMCID: PMC2720357 DOI: 10.5688/aj730461

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To present and describe interprofessional education (IPE) in 6 US colleges of pharmacy including benefits, barriers, and strategies for implementation.

METHODS: A focus group with campus faculty IPE leaders and administrators was conducted at each of the 6 colleges. External facilitators used a structured script with open-ended questions to guide each session. A qualitative approach was used and content analysis of transcripts was conducted.

RESULTS: On a 10-point scale, mean participant interest in IPE was 8.8 +/- 1.7. Incentives included enhanced student education, instructional economies of scale, improved communication among disciplines, and promotion of teamwork to improve quality of care. Curricular logistics, limited resources, lack of conceptual support, and cultural issues were the major barriers to IPE. Institutions were at various stages of IPE implementation. Participants emphasized that full institutional support was critical in maintaining IPE programs.

CONCLUSION: Interest in IPE was high and opportunities were numerous as described by faculty members at the institutions; however, numerous challenges to implementation were identified.

Keywords: focus group; interprofessional education; pharmacy

References

  1. Med Teach. 2004 Sep;26(6):545-52 - PubMed
  2. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983 Jun;51(3):390-5 - PubMed
  3. J Interprof Care. 2005 May;19 Suppl 1:60-75 - PubMed
  4. HIV Clin Trials. 2002 Nov-Dec;3(6):475-81 - PubMed
  5. J Interprof Care. 2005 May;19 Suppl 1:76-86 - PubMed
  6. J Interprof Care. 2006 Mar;20(2):145-61 - PubMed
  7. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2002;7(3):179-90 - PubMed
  8. Med Teach. 2005 Aug;27(5):433-8 - PubMed
  9. Am J Pharm Educ. 2006 Jun 15;70(3):66 - PubMed
  10. Med Educ. 2007 Sep;41(9):892-6 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types