Economic models for sustainable interprofessional education |
| |
| Authors: | Patricia A. Carney David T. Bearden Molly L. Osborne Martha Driessnack Curt C. Stilp Judith Gedney Baggs |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health &2. Science University, Portland, OR, USAcarneyp@ohsu.edu;4. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Oregon Health &5. Science University, Portland, OR, USA;6. Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine and Veteran’s Administration (VA), Pulmonary Section, VA Portland Health Care System, Oregon Health &7. School of Nursing, Oregon Health &8. Division of Physician Assistant Education, School of Medicine, Oregon Health &9. Science University, Portland OR |
| |
| Abstract: | ABSTRACTLimited information exists on funding models for interprofessional education (IPE) course delivery, even though potential savings from IPE could be gained in healthcare delivery efficiencies and patient safety. Unanticipated economic barriers to implementing an IPE curriculum across programs and schools in University settings can stymie or even end movement toward collaboration and sustainable culture change. Clarity among stakeholders, including institutional leadership, faculty, and students, is necessary to avoid confusion about IPE tuition costs and funds flow, given that IPE involves multiple schools and programs sharing space, time, faculty, and tuition dollars. In this paper, we consider three funding models for IPE: (a) Centralized (b) Blended, and (c) Decentralized. The strengths and challenges associated with each of these models are discussed. Beginning such a discussion will move us toward understanding the return on investment of IPE. |
| |
| Keywords: | Economic frameworks health professions tuition interprofessional education sustainability |
|
|
