Background Enhanced patient outcomes and accreditation criteria have led schools to integrate interprofessional education (IPE). While several studies describe IPE curricula at individual institutions, few examine practices across multiple institutions. Purpose To examine the IPE integration at different institutions and determine gaps where there is potential for improvement. Method In this mixed methods study, we obtained survey results from 16 U.S. medical schools, 14 of which reported IPE activities. Results The most common collaboration was between medical and nursing schools (93%). The prevalent format was shared curriculum, often including integrated modules (57%). Small group activities represented the majority (64%) of event settings, and simulation-based learning, games and role-play (71%) were the most utilized learning methods. Thirteen schools (81.3%) reported teaching IPE competencies, but significant variation existed. Gaps and barriers in the study include limitations of using a convenience sample, limited qualitative analysis, and survey by self-report. Conclusions Most IPE activities focused on the physician role. Implementation challenges included scheduling, logistics and financial support. A need for effective faculty development as well as measures to examine the link between IPE learning outcomes and patient outcomes were identified.

Objectives:To examine the relationship between study strategies and performance on a high stakes medical licensing exam entitled the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1.Methods:The action research project included seventy nine student participants at the Texas A&M Health Science Center College of Medicine during their pre-clinical education. Data collection included pre-matriculation and matriculation academic performance data, standardized exam data, and the Learning and Study Strategies Instrument. Multiple regression analyses were conducted. For both models, the dependent variable was the Step 1 score, and the independent variables included Medical College Admission Test, Undergraduate Grade Point Average, Year 1 Average, Year 2 Average, Customized National Board of Medical Examiners Average, Comprehensive Basic Science Exam score, and Learning and Study Strategy Instrument sub-scores. Model 2 added Comprehensive Basic Science Self-Assessment average.Results:Concentration (Model 1 - β = .264; Model 2 - β = .254) was the only study strategy correlated with Step 1 performance. The other statistically significant predictors were Customized National Board of Medical Examiners Average (β = .315) and Year 2 Average (β = .280) in Model 1 and Comprehensive Basic Science Self-Assessment Average (β = .338) in Model 2.Conclusions:There does appear to be a relationship between the study strategy concentration and Step 1 licensing exam performance. Teaching students to practice and utilize certain techniques to improve concentration skills when preparing for and taking exams may help improve licensing exam scores.

No abstract