Background: Global culture influences health behaviors and attitudes and the way we communicate and solve problems; it can also significantly affect the efficiency of the multicultural and interprofessional healthcare team. This scoping review aims to understand and identify global cultural considerations that exist in interprofessional education (IPE) and that influence the development, implementation, and effectiveness of IPE. Methods and Findings: The search included peer-reviewed articles focused on both IPE and global culture, also referred to as national, ethnic, or racial culture. There was no limitation placed on levels of learners nor specific health professions. Articles were excluded if they did not explicitly discuss global cultural considerations in IPE. The authors screened 1094 records, and 155 full-text articleswere assessed for eligibility. No eligible papers were found for inclusion yielding an empty review. The most common reasons for exclusion were failure to address global culture and a focus on provider-patient cultural competency as opposed to cultural aspects of IPE. Conclusions: Despite the recognition of the importance of global culture in all interactions, it is not explicitly addressed within the interprofessional healthcare team or the development and implementation of IPE. Studies addressing culturally congruent teamwork and IPE, and the relationship to culturally inclusive patient care, are needed.

Purpose: Health care distance simulation (HCDS) replicates professional encounters through an immersive experience overseen by experts and in which technological infrastructure enriches the learning activity. As HCDS has gained traction, so has the movement to provide inclusive and accessible simulation experiences for all participants. However, established guidelines for best practices in HCDS regarding justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion (JEDI) are lacking. This study aimed to generate consensus statements on JEDI principles in synchronous HCDS education using the nominal group technique (NGT). Method: Professionals with experience in HCDS education were invited to generate, record, discuss, and vote on ideas that they considered best practices for JEDI. This process was followed by a thematic analysis of the NGT discussion to provide a deeper understanding of the final consensus statements. An independent group of HCDS educators individually reviewed and recorded their agreement or disagreement with the consensus statements created by the NGT process. Results: Eleven independent experts agreed on 6 key practices for JEDI in HCDS. Educators need to (1) be aware of JEDI principles, (2) be able to define and differentiate JEDI, (3) model JEDI in their environment, (4) have expertise and comfort facilitating conversations and debriefing around JEDI issues, (5) be advocates within their organizations to ensure equitable educational experiences, and (6) achieve JEDI without compromising educational objectives. Experts were divided on the approach to technology to ensure equitable learning experiences: some believed that the most basic technology accessible to all learners should be used, and some believed that the technology used should be determined by the competency of the students or faculty. Conclusions: Structural and institutional barriers in HCDS education persist despite agreement on key JEDI practices. Conclusive research is needed to guide the optimal policy in HCDS toward creating equitable learning experiences while bridging the digital divide.