Aim:In this current climate of escalating student fees, students as paying consumers expect a quality fieldwork experience. However, the ability of universities to deliver quality fieldwork programs is compromised by the increasing pressure experienced by fieldwork educators to meet productivity targets in the face of diminishing resources. This paper details how one university, Monash University, sought input from stakeholders to design a fieldwork program. Methods: This qualitative study utilised focus groups to inform the researchers of stakeholders' perceptions of what constitutes quality fieldwork education. A total of five focus groups were held, involving 47 occupational therapists practising in Victoria.Results: The major findings include the need to provide ongoing professional development for fieldwork educators, the need to develop tangible strategies in recognition of their contribution towards fieldwork education, and the imperative for closer collaboration between universities and fieldwork educators. Conclusions: Based on literature and in response to the focus group discussions, Monash University has implemented a number of measures to ensure the successful implementation of quality fieldwork education. These include providing ongoing professional development for fieldwork educators to enhance their role, addressing fieldwork educators' concerns about project placements and supporting students with fieldwork relocation. Most importantly, this study demonstrates the need for educational institutions to take the lead in dialogue with the profession to enhance a collaborative response to constant changes in health-care directions. The importance of ongoing research to inform quality fieldwork education is critical to moving the profession forward.

Teamwork in health care settings is assumed to be beneficial for the client since it allows for a more holistic, comprehensive, co-ordinated approach. It is essential, therefore, for team members to have an adequate knowledge of, and respect for one another's professions. Traditionally, the different health care professions know little about each others specific skillset and their roles as health care practitioners, whereas in interprofessional education (IPE), clinicians and/or students become familiar with the knowledge, skills and attitudes of each other to be effective team members. Changes in the current health care environment require well-versed, flexible, collaborative clinicians who work for the client's best interests. Traditional professional silos are no longer viable. IPE both at the undergraduate/preemployment level and postgraduate/post-employment level is seen as one means to foster effective cross-professional communication, collaboration and client-centred care. IPE assists students to increase their knowledge of the roles and functions of other related professionals and enable an integrated approach to both in the workplace and in collaborative practice. Given that IPE is resource intensive, a question that can be posed is "how effective is IPE?" Many evaluation studies examining the effectiveness of IPE in health care contexts (mainly with physicians and nurses) have been completed. Only a few investigations have included other health professions such as occupational therapy, pharmacy, social work or physiotherapy. All of the IPE effectiveness studies report some form of positive benefit or outcome, but none of the studies are definitive or have been replicated. Many of the published health science IPE evaluation studies lack adequate rigor in terms of poor or unclear research design used, small sample size, non-randomisation of participants, lack of comparison control group, lack of acknowledgement of bias, non-standardised instruments used and/or statistical analyses completed. Several systematic reviews have been completed dealing with the published health science IPE evaluation literature, but the results have been largely inconclusive. Ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of IPE in the health sciences is required.

K E Y W O R D S experienced occupational therapists, recruitment, return to work.

No abstract