Background Use of healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). This study describes how junior learners perceive and classify healthcare terminology in IPE settings. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study involving 29 medical, 14 nursing, and 2 physician assistant students who had previously attended or were registered to participate in educational activities at McMaster University’s Centre for Simulation-Based Learning. 23 participants identified “inclusive” or “exclusive” terminology in a series of scenarios used for IPE workshops using an online survey. We collated lists of “inclusive” and “exclusive” terminology from survey responses, and characterized the frequencies of included words. 22 students participated in focus group discussions on attitudes and perceptions around healthcare terminology after attending IPE workshops. We identified themes through an iterative direct content analysis of verbatim transcripts. Results Students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (28% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by > 50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, lack of familiarity with terminology was often attributed to inexperience, simulation was considered a safe space for learning terminology, and learning terminology was a valued IPE objective. Conclusions While students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in IPE learning materials, categorization of terminology as “inclusive” or “exclusive” is inconsistent. Moreover, healthcare terminology is perceived as a desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

Background: Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology.Results: 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE.Conclusions: Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

Background: Use of healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). This study describes how junior learners perceive and classify healthcare terminology in IPE settings.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving 29 medical, 14 nursing, and 2 physician assistant students who had previously attended or were registered to participate in educational activities at McMaster University’s Centre for Simulation-Based Learning. 23 participants identified “inclusive” or “exclusive” terminology in a series of scenarios used for IPE workshops using an online survey. We collated lists of “inclusive” and “exclusive” terminology from survey responses, and characterized the frequencies of included words. 22 students participated in focus group discussions on attitudes and perceptions around healthcare terminology after attending IPE workshops. We identified themes through an iterative direct content analysis of verbatim transcripts.Results: Students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, lack of familiarity with terminology was often attributed to inexperience, simulation was considered a safe space for learning terminology, and learning terminology was a valued IPE objective.Conclusions: While students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in IPE learning materials, categorization of terminology as “inclusive” or “exclusive” is inconsistent. Moreover, healthcare terminology is perceived as a desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

Background Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how complex terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting. Methods We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology. Results 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by > 50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE. Conclusions Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.

Background: Use of jargon and complex healthcare terminology is a potential barrier to interprofessional education (IPE). Healthcare terminology can be separated into two categories: inclusive terminology shared amongst professions, and exclusive terminology unique to one profession. We sought to understand how terminology is perceived by junior learners in an IPE setting.Methods: We conducted a mixed methods study involving medical, nursing, and physician assistant students attending IPE simulation workshops. Students reviewed scenarios used in the workshops and identified terminology they considered “inclusive” or “exclusive”. Then, students participated in focus group discussions surrounding attitudes/perceptions towards healthcare terminology.Results: 23 students analyzed 14 cases, identifying on average 21 terms per case as healthcare terminology (29% of overall word count). Of the 290 terms identified, 113 terms were classified as healthcare terminology, 46 as inclusive and 17 as exclusive by >50% of participants. Analysis of focus group transcripts revealed 4 themes: abbreviations were commonly perceived as complex terminology, unfamiliarity with terminology was often attributed to being early in training even if exclusive, simulation was considered a safe space for learning, and learning terminology was a valued objective in early IPE.Conclusions: Students perceive a lot of healthcare terminology in learning materials, which is recognized as a valuable learning objective in their early IPE experiences, but also a challenge. Categorization of healthcare language is inconsistent among students and may reflect individual differences in prior experiences. Overall, healthcare terminology is a valued desirable difficulty among junior learners, and should not be avoided in IPE.