4.6 Article

Interprofessional Education: A Review and Analysis of Programs From Three Academic Health Centers

期刊

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
卷 87, 期 7, 页码 949-955

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182583374

关键词

-

资金

  1. Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation
  2. APTR [5U50CD300860]
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [5U50CD300860]
  4. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [APTHP020003]
  5. American Academy of Physician Assistants (AAPA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The past decade witnessed momentum toward redesigning the U.S. health care system with the intent to improve quality of care. To achieve and sustain this change, health professions education must likewise reform to prepare future practitioners to optimize their ability to participate in the new paradigm of health care delivery. Recognizing that interprofessional education (IPE) is gaining momentum as a crucial aspect of health care professions training, this article provides an introduction to IPE programs from three different academic health centers, which were developed and implemented to train health care practitioners who provide patient-centered, collaborative care. The three participating programs are briefly described, as well as the processes and some lessons learned that were critical in the process of adopting IPE programs in their respective institutions. Critical aspects of each program are described to allow comparison of the critical building blocks for developing an IPE program. Among those building blocks, the authors present information on the planning processes of the different institutions, the competencies that each program aims to instill in the graduates, the snapshot of the three curricular models, and the assessment strategies used by each institution. The authors conclude by providing details that may provide insight for academic institutions considering implementation of IPE programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据