Positive (n=465) and negative (n=241) contributory factors to positive or negative IPSC interactions
| Theme | Definition | Illustrative quote |
| Individual | ||
| Positive (n=160, 34%) | Individual level factors contributing to positive experiences related to students (eg, seeking out opportunities, knowledge, motivation, self-awareness, openness), clinicians (eg, warmth, teaching capabilities, approachability, motivation) or other individuals (eg, patient openness). | ‘He [pharmacist] sat down with me… he said, “Okay, so, this is how it works and this [is] why it works. These are the risks. These are the patients that we would give it to, and this is why”… felt like it… wasn’t a big issue for him to explain that to me’ (Nursing student, F10NS1) |
| Negative (n=73, 30%) | Individual level factors contributing to negative experiences related to students (eg, unmotivated, incompetent, resistant to feedback), clinicians (eg, anxiety about patient safety, lack of knowledge about scopes of practice, rude/abrupt, poor teachers) or other individuals (eg, patient, family members, peers). | |
| Interactional | ||
| Positive (n=251, 54%) | Interactional level factors contributing to positive experiences related mostly to IPSC relationships (eg, making the student feel welcome, encouraging student to seek IP learning opportunities). Other times they related to clinician-IP clinician relationships (eg, uniprofessional clinician arranging an IPSC interaction with the IP clinician) or student-patient relationships (eg, building rapport). | ‘There still was this barrier of, “I was this physio and there was this OT”… there was… a distinction. It was… a little bit awkward. They [OT students] achieved their objective, we [Physiotherapy clinicians] achieved ours but it was kind of disjointed’ (Physiotherapy clinician, M3PT3C4) |
| Negative (n=100, 42%) | Interactional level factors contributing to negative experiences related mostly to IPSC relationships (eg, relationships characterised by mistrust, poor communication, insensitivity). Other relationships impacting negatively on experiences included student-patient (eg, no trust), clinician-patient/family (eg, no inclusion), uniprofessional student-clinician (eg, lack of communication) or clinician-IP clinician (eg, animosity between roles). | |
| Organisational | ||
| Positive (n=54, 12%) | Organisational level factors contributing to positive experiences such as having: sufficient time, setting conducive to interprofessional interaction (eg, shared physical space), controlled learning environment (rather than uncontrolled), optimal student numbers on placement and opportunities for student input into formal or informal care meetings. | ‘The biggest issue in general whether it’d be in a hospital or even in a community setting, is everybody in their role is so time-pressed because of just the demands on healthcare’ (Midwifery student, F22MidS1) |
| Negative (n=68, 28%) | Organisational level factors contributing to negative experiences included: insufficient time, suboptimal setting (eg, acute care less of a team-based approach), limited physical space (eg, uncontrolled/high risk environments), interprofessional hierarchies/siloes, simultaneous delivery of patient care and student learning and lack of opportunities for student input during formal or informal care meetings. |
IPSC, interprofessional student-clinician.