F.M. Cimino is associate professor, Department of Family Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, and program director, National Capital Consortium Family Medicine Residency, Fort Belvoir, Virginia; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3674-2906 .
L. Varpio is professor of medicine and associate director of research, Center for Health Professions Education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1412-4341 .
Acad Med. 2022 Nov 1;97(11S):S87-S95. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000004909. Epub 2022 Aug 9.
Faculty within interprofessional education (IPE) are essential contributors to IPE implementation efforts. Although the majority of existing IPE literature consists of reports on IPE innovations, few insights are available into the experiences of the faculty members who deliver IPE. This critical narrative review was designed to synthesize the knowledge available about (1) roles assigned to IPE educators and (2) IPE faculty members' experiences of fulfilling these roles.
Six databases for English-language studies published between 2000 and March 2021 were searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and MedEdPortal. A total of 1,717 manuscripts were identified for possible inclusion. After applying inclusion/exclusion criteria, 214 articles constituted the final literature corpus. Harden and Crosby's original framework of 6 roles of medical educators augmented with the manager role introduced in Harden and Lilley's 2018 framework informed the analysis.
IPE faculty take on all 6 roles identified by Harden and Crosby: facilitator, planner, information provider, examiner, role model, and resource developer, as well as the manager role. Faculty were most commonly identified as facilitator and planner, and rarely as role models. The authors identified 3 main struggles experienced by IPE faculty: personal (e.g., confidence as a cross-professions educator), interpersonal (e.g., co-teaching IPE), and institutional (e.g., supporting IPE logistics).
This review highlights the complexity of the roles taken on by IPE faculty and the struggles they experience in the process. The results suggest that attention to the different roles that IPE faculty play in educational interventions and to equipping faculty with the necessary competencies, tools, and support, is fundamental to the success of IPE. Future research should harness the explanatory power of theories to help explain dynamics at play between personal, interpersonal, and institutional barriers to identify interventions that can aid IPE faculty in delivering collaboration-ready professionals.
教学人员是跨专业教育（IPE）实施工作的重要贡献者。尽管现有的大多数 IPE 文献都是关于 IPE 创新的报告，但很少有关于实施 IPE 的教师的经验的见解。本批判性叙事评论旨在综合现有知识，包括：(1) 分配给 IPE 教育者的角色，以及 (2) IPE 教师履行这些角色的经验。
搜索了 2000 年至 2021 年 3 月期间发表的六种英文数据库：PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、MEDLINE、CINAHL、PsycINFO、ERIC 和 MedEdPortal。共确定了 1717 篇可能纳入的手稿。在应用纳入/排除标准后，214 篇文章构成了最终的文献资料。哈顿和克罗斯比最初的 6 种医学教育者角色框架，加上哈顿和利利 2018 年框架中引入的管理者角色，为分析提供了信息。
IPE 教师承担了哈顿和克罗斯比确定的所有 6 种角色：促进者、规划者、信息提供者、考试者、榜样和资源开发者，以及管理者角色。教师最常被认定为促进者和规划者，很少被认定为榜样。作者发现 IPE 教师面临的 3 个主要困境：个人（例如，作为跨专业教育者的信心）、人际关系（例如，共同教授 IPE）和机构（例如，支持 IPE 后勤）。
本综述强调了 IPE 教师所承担的角色的复杂性以及他们在这一过程中所经历的困难。结果表明，关注 IPE 教师在教育干预中所扮演的不同角色，以及为教师提供必要的能力、工具和支持，对于 IPE 的成功至关重要。未来的研究应利用理论的解释力，帮助解释个人、人际关系和机构障碍之间的动态，以确定可以帮助 IPE 教师培养出具备合作能力的专业人员的干预措施。
