Background Interprofessional education (IPE) aims to improve students’ collaborative competencies and behaviour. The effect of classroom IPE on students’ perceptions of collaboration in clinical practice, and how knowledge is possibly transferred, has yet to be investigated. The research question of this study was: How does IPE in a classroom setting influence students’ perceptions of collaboration in clinical practice? Social capital theory is used as the theoretical lens. Social capital theory describes how social relationships generate benefits for the individuals involved. Social capital can be divided into three forms of social cohesion: bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Bonding refers to connections that are close and strong, such as family. Bridging social capital occurs in more distant relationships. Linking social capital refers to relationships between individuals with different power or social status. Methods A qualitative study with semi-structured face-to-face interviews was conducted to explore students’ perceptions and experiences. Nursing and medical students who had participated in four classroom IPE-sessions were asked about the perceived influence of the IPE-sessions they had attended on their interprofessional collaboration. Thematic analysis was conducted, with sensitising concepts of ‘bonding’, ‘bridging’ and ‘linking social capital’ from the social capital theory. Results Twenty-two interviews were conducted. Students experienced: 1) exchange of discipline specific knowledge, 2) general knowledge about each other’s responsibilities, 3) reduction of hierarchy, and 4) improvement in patient care. The first two themes reflect bridging social capital, since students experience that the other student is from a different group. The third theme reflects linking social capital, since students experience a difference in (social) status. The fourth theme most explicitly reflects ‘getting ahead’ or doing better, what is referred to as an effect of increased social capital. Conclusion This study reveals new insights regarding how increased social capital of undergraduate students after IPE-sessions in a classroom setting influences the way they conceptualise and experience interprofessional collaboration in clinical practice. These insights contribute to the understanding of the effectiveness of IPE in undergraduate curricula. Further research on long-term effects is underway.

Background: Case-based Interprofessional Education (IPE) can help students practise their roles and responsibilities. To construct these cases, input from experts in clinical practice is essential. Consensus between these experts can be facilitated using consensus methods. In this study, a geriatric focus for the cases was chosen because of the interprofessional nature of geriatrics and the ageing population in healthcare facilities. Methods: By combining the 3 most commonly used consensus methods, we developed a 6-step approach to validate cases for IPE. The 6 steps include 3 expert rounds (Steps 1, 3 and 5) and 2 rounds in which discussion points were formulated by the researcher (Steps 2 and 4). The cases were piloted with students as Step 6. Four facets of a case were included: the patient description, the complemented treatment plan, the difficulty of the case and the scoring of the treatment plan. Our educational setting required constructing 4 cases with increasing difficulty. Results: Step 1: 5 typical geriatric cases were assembled. Step 2: Similar characteristics were defined; 5 cases were merged into 4. The 4 cases showed increasing difficulty levels. Step 3: The constructed cases were validated for patient description authenticity, treatment plan adequacy, difficulty and scoring of the treatment plan. Step 4: The items for further discussion were defined. Step 5: Consensus was reached for all 4 cases through a face-to-face discussion. Step 6: The student pilot for Case 1 showed no significant adjustments. Conclusion: We developed a 6-step consensus method to validate cases for IPE, and we constructed 4 geriatric cases based on this method. While consensus about the patient descriptions and difficulty levels was reached easily, consensus on the treatment plans was more difficult to achieve. Validation of the scoring of the treatment plan was unsuccessful. Further research on this will be conducted.