Carney Patricia A, Bearden David T, Osborne Molly L, Driessnack Martha, Stilp Curt C, Gedney Baggs Judith, Austin Jared P, Tonning Kristi, Boyd Jennifer
Department of Family Medicine, School of Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
J Interprof Care. 2018 Nov;32(6):745-751. doi: 10.1080/13561820.2018.1509846. Epub 2018 Aug 15.
Limited 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.
尽管跨专业教育（IPE）课程实施可能会在医疗服务效率和患者安全方面带来潜在的成本节约，但关于IPE课程交付的资金模式的信息却很有限。在大学环境中，跨项目和学校实施IPE课程时，意外出现的经济障碍可能会阻碍甚至终止迈向合作与可持续文化变革的进程。鉴于IPE涉及多个学校和项目共享空间、时间、教师和学费资金，机构领导、教师和学生等利益相关者之间必须明确，以避免对IPE学费成本和资金流动产生混淆。在本文中，我们考虑了三种IPE资金模式：（a）集中式（b）混合式，以及（c）分散式。讨论了与每种模式相关的优势和挑战。开启这样的讨论将推动我们理解IPE的投资回报。
