Purpose The purpose of this article was to propose the use of a translational model as a tool for identifying limitations of current interprofessional education (IPE) research. Translational models allow researchers to clearly define next-step research needed to translate IPE to interprofessional practice (IPP). Method Key principles, goals, and limitations of current IPE research are reviewed. A popular IPE evaluation model is examined through the lens of implementation research. The authors propose a new translational model that more clearly illustrates translational gaps that can be used to direct future research. Next steps for translating IPE to IPP are discussed. Conclusion Comprehensive reviews of the literature show that the implementation strategies adopted to date have fostered improved buy-in from key stakeholders, as evidenced by improved attitudes and perceptions toward interprofessional collaboration/practice. However, there is little evidence regarding successful implementation outcomes, such as changed clinician behaviors, changed organizational practices, or improved patient outcomes. The authors propose the use of an IPE to IPP translational model to facilitate clear identification of research gaps and to better identify future research targets.

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) developed the National Outcomes Measurement System for aggregating standardized patient outcomes. Outcomes are standardized using Functional Communication Measures (FCM), scales designed to describe communicative function across specific areas of clinical need. This investigation compared in-person and telepractice service delivery for children in elementary school settings who received treatment targeting the FCM categories of either “spoken language production” or “spoken language comprehension.” De-identified cases were secured from ASHA’s NOMS database and the database of a private e-learning provider that implemented the NOMS format. There were minimal significant differences in the median change scores between the traditional and telepractice interventions. These results support comparable treatment outcomes between in-person service delivery and telepractice for treatment of children exhibiting impaired spoken language production or spoken language comprehension in an elementary school setting