Respiratory Therapy Faculty Knowledge of and Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Education

Results

Overall, 285 of 874 possible faculty respondents completed the survey for a total response rate of 33%. This is a better response than that for similar internet survey research using an e-mailed survey link among faculty, which was reported to be around 20%.^16,17 More than half of the respondents (n = 197, 69%) identified themselves as faculty at an associate's only program, whereas the remaining faculty (n = 88, 31%) worked at programs that awarded a bachelor's and/or master's degree. Faculty at nonprofit institutions comprised 83% (n = 237) of the sample. Table 1 summarizes the demographic characteristics of the respondents' RT programs. Significant group differences were found between profit status and age of the program (chi-square = 21.51, P = .02). When compared by degree offered, type of institution (chi-square = 185.85, P < .001), number of students enrolled (chi-square = 35.1, P < .001), and age of the program were all significantly different between groups (chi-square = 11.0, P < .05).

In section 2, faculty reported using interprofessional instructional methods, including case studies (n = 54, 38%), clinic (n = 78, 55%), and simulation (n = 92, 64.8%), most often. A combination of methods was reported by 55% (n = 78) of the faculty. No significant differences existed between faculty responses by degree offered or profit status in this section.

Current health discipline academic programs collaborating with RT faculty are shown in Figure 1. The most frequently listed collaborating program was nursing (n = 217, 79% of responses). We provided 8 choices of collaborating disciplines (nursing, pharmacy, dietetics, physical therapy, occupational therapy, medicine, social work, and speech-language pathologist), including the allowance of the option to add a non-listed collaboration: 15 additional professions were suggested. Twenty-two respondents reported no collaborating discipline.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Fig. 1.

Professions currently collaborating with respiratory therapy programs in interprofessional education. The current collaborating health discipline academic programs listed by the survey respondents were compiled, and similar programs were renamed to a single title. This file was uploaded into TagCrowd (www.tagcrowd.com) to generate a word cloud. The size of the word visually represents the frequency with which the word appears in the file. Actual frequencies are noted next to the word in parentheses. CLS = clinical laboratory science; EMS = emergency medical services; HIT = health information technology; MDLS = medical and digital laboratory sciences; OT = occupational therapy; PA = physician's assistant; PT = physical therapy; SLP = speech and language pathology.

Slightly more than half of faculty (n = 144, 53%) indicated that their programs included some form of IPE training. However, more faculty in bachelor's/master's programs (n = 55, 65.5%) reported IPE inclusion than associate's degree faculty (n = 89, 48%, chi-square = 7.224, P = .007). Profit status did not result in significant differences in inclusion of IPE training.

Responses to the question “In your opinion, how many credit hours are needed to teach IPE?” varied: 5% (n = 15) for 1 h, 9% for 2 h (n = 25), 13% for 3 h (n = 37), and 15% for ≥4 h (n = 42). Seven percent indicated 0 h (n = 18), and “I don't know” was selected by 48% (n = 124). Further analysis by degree awarded and profit status did not find significant differences between groups.

Almost 80% of faculty respondents (n = 207) agreed that they would like to see a greater emphasis on IPE in curricula. This was not statistically different across groups. Forty percent of all faculty responses agreed that current accreditation requirements limit IPE efforts.

Faculty were asked to rank the IPE competencies (ethics, communication, roles and responsibilities, and teams and teamwork) from most to least important on a scale of 1–4. Overall, communication was ranked as the most important competency by 104 faculty (39%). Teams and teamwork was ranked most important by 62 faculty (23%), ethics by 53 (20%), and roles and responsibility by 48 (18%). Ethics was ranked least important most often (n = 131, 49%) (Fig. 2).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Fig. 2.

Overall rankings of interprofessional education competency importance. Survey respondents were asked to rank the importance of the 4 competencies recommended by the IPEC Task Force: ethics, communication, roles and responsibilities, and teams/teamwork. Each item was ranked on a scale of 1 (most important) to 4 (least important), and each rank could only be used once. Responses are depicted in a stacked bar graph, and total numbers of responses are listed in each section of the bar.

Table 2 presents competency ranking grouped by degree offered. Teams and teamwork was ranked significantly different by associate's versus bachelor's/master's faculty (P = .054). More bachelor's/master's faculty ranked it most important, and more associate's faculty ranked it least important. Ethics, communication, and roles and responsibilities were not ranked significantly differently by faculty in these groups.

In Table 3, faculty at for-profit institutions significantly rank ethics as most important, compared to faculty at non-profit institutions (P = .02). All other IPE competency rankings were not significantly different between profit and nonprofit institutions.

Table 4 summarizes the responses to the individual items of sections 3–5 across the overall sample. Mann-Whitney/Wilcoxon tests between groups by degree offered and profit/nonprofit status indicated that there were significant differences between faculty responses by degree offered; no significant differences were found between respondents in the profit/nonprofit group. Group differences on these sections are reported in supplementary Tables 1 and 2 (see the supplementary materials at http://www.rcjournal.com).

Cronbach's α revealed high internal consistency within sections 3–5: attitudes toward IPE (0.78), attitudes toward interprofessional learning in the academic setting (0.74), and attitudes toward interprofessional learning in health-care teams (0.88).

In section 3 (attitudes toward IPE), overall, responses supported IPE; there were no significant differences between groups. Over 90% of faculty strongly agreed or agreed that patients would ultimately benefit from students who receive IPE training and that RT students would benefit from interdisciplinary IPE training.

In section 4 (attitudes toward interprofessional learning in the academic setting), in general, 42% (n = 109) of faculty did not think that there was room for additional IPE education requirements in the current curriculum, and 34% (n = 88) neither agreed nor disagreed. Respondents (n = 226, 88%) agreed or strongly agreed that faculty should be encouraged to participate in interprofessional courses.

Faculty were evenly divided overall and between groups on whether the Committee on Accreditation for Respiratory Care should mandate IPE inclusion in the RT curriculum, although 80% felt that IPE was important. Bachelor's and master's degree faculty agreed more frequently that there are current curriculum requirements that could be removed to make room for additional IPE education, though this is not significant.

Several statements in this section received significantly different responses between the associate's and bachelor's/master's groups: “There are current curriculum requirements that could be removed to make room for additional IPE education,” with more associate's faculty disagreeing with the statement (P = .02); “My program has the resources and personnel to teach IPE courses,” with more associate's faculty disagreeing with the statement (P < .001); “My institution has the resources to implement IPE,” with more associate's faculty disagreeing with the statement (P < .001); “Faculty should be encouraged to participate in interprofessional courses,” with more associate's faculty agreeing with the statement (P = .031); “Faculty like teaching with faculty from other academic departments,” with more bachelor's/master's faculty agreeing with the statement (P = .002); and “It is important for academic health center campuses to provide interprofessional learning opportunities” (P < .001), with more bachelor's/master's agreeing with the statement. (see supplementary Tables 1 and 2.)

In section 5 (attitudes toward interprofessional learning in health-care teams), faculty responses reflected support for interprofessional practice in health care, the belief that patients are more likely to be treated as a whole person (77%), that patient care delivery is more efficient (81%), that care improves in quality with interprofessional practice (87%), and that working in an interprofessional environment keeps health-care professionals enthusiastic about their jobs (70%). Significant differences between degree-awarded groups exist for the statement: “Team meetings foster communication among members from different professions or disciplines” (P = .02).