gave presentations of what was covered in their breakout sessions, informed by the group discussions.

The material presented was discussed by one or more workshop participants. During the workshop, all participants engaged in active discussions about opportunities. In some cases, participants expressed differing opinions. Because this is a summary of workshop comments and not meant to provide consensus recommendations, the workshop rapporteur endeavored to include all comments discussed by workshop participants as presented by the group leaders who were informed by the group discussions. The summaries of the breakout group reports should be attributed to the rapporteur of this summary as informed by the workshop.

ASSESSING THE INTERPROFESSIONAL LEARNER FROM EDUCATION TO WORKPLACE

Catherine Grus and Lucy Mac Gabhann focused on assessing the interprofessional learner from education to the workplace. In her remarks, Grus commented that several themes came up consistently across the three levels of opportunities noted in Table 5-1, but there were additional important points she wanted to mention. One was regarding the importance of data collection—in particular, the importance of longitudinal data collection, and how it could be helpful in formative assessments of individual learners and in overcoming obstacles to greater acceptance of IPE. But, she said, for high-quality assessments of the interprofessional learners to be developed and properly used, there would need to be a culture that embraces IPE. Grus said that this is a critical step for moving forward to more advanced discussions, such as how to assess the interface between education and practice. To do this, a more fluid connection between program-level faculty and practice sites would have to be established along with an understanding of the types of assessments being conducted at practice sites.

Mac Gabhann followed up on Grus’ remarks by presenting a suggestion for overcoming one identified challenge: how best to assess collaboration on an individual level—along the continuum from training through practice—that is consistent with the triple aim.

The ideas for her suggestion reflected many of the opportunities noted in Table 5-1. Ideally, said Mac Gabhann, the design noted in Box 5-2 would start simultaneously at all levels (macro, meso, and micro); this might not be realistic, however, so she identified two areas for initial efforts at the policy level. The first is to bring IPE and interprofessional practice (IPP) into the accreditation process for professions and for institutions, and the second is to design financial incentives that would encourage individual health professions to embrace IPE. Advocating for change in funding for interprofessional training and assessment could be the impetus for this to



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement