Professional Poster

Academic Redesign Utilizing Interprofessional Student Participation to Improve Elective Course Outcomes: A Retrospective, Quality Improvement Study.

Log in to view the attachment.
interprofessional education

PURPOSE: The study retrospectively compared end-course evaluation scores before and after utilizing interprofessional students’ feedback quality improvement of course content and organization.

METHODS: There were 426 total students enrolled in the evaluated interprofessional elective. 309 (72.5%) students submitted RedCap end-course evaluations across the 3 semesters (“pilot”, “pre-redesign”, and “post-redesign” respectively). Submissions were preliminary assessed regarding student’s college, semester, evaluation completion (±comment inclusion), and comment categories. Quantified rating scores were used to compare the students perspective of course success between semesters. The implemented redesign changes were examined and compared to the student feedback. A tertiary analysis used this study’s results and available literature evidence to best suggest how future student participation could maximize future successful academic reform.

RESULTS: From all submitted evaluations, 8 colleges were represented: 50 (16.2%) occupational therapist, 20 (6.5%) dental, 7 (2.3%) medical health administrator, 72 (23.3%) nursing, 38 (12.3%) cardiovascular perfusion, 28 (9.1%) physical therapy, 20 (6.5%) pharmacy, and 74 (24%) medical. The majority of submitted evaluations were from the post-redesign course (n=161, 52.1%) with pilot (n=56, 18.1%) and pre-redesign (92, 29.8%) courses in the minority. While 234 (75.7%) submitted evaluations included at least one comment, only 66 (21.4%) were entirely completed–including a praise and a recommendation for both instructor and course improvement. The vast majority of 409 instructor comments addressed the instructor’s performance (n=294, 71.9%). There were 339 course comments which addressed the instructor’s performance (n=41, 12.1%), course’s organization (n=93, 27.4%), content covered (n=139, 41.0%), and interprofessional collaboration (n=66, 19.5%). A total of 34 scores were compared between the semesters, which all (100%) had post-redesign scores statistically different than the pre-redesign scores (p=0.00003). 3 particular student scores were shown to be improved from redesign: embracing the health care team diversity (p=3e-8), understanding the responsibilities and expertise of other health professions (p=1e-6), and maintaining professional competence (p=3e-8).

CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant improvement in scores following redesign as compared to before, however the data may not be conclusive for all studied categories. There was decreased interprofessional diversity during the pre-redesign class which could be a confounding contributor to the low scores observed. More data is needed to draw conclusions about student participation in course redesign, however this study suggests that a correlation might exist.