Assessment of an interprofessional surgical teaching forum demonstrates improved learning outcomes and highlights collaboration opportunities.
Background Interprofessional education (IPE) occurs when two or more professions learn together to enhance collaboration and improve patient care. The 2015 Improving Surgical Training report recommends developing cross-professional competencies, which can be readily facilitated through IPE. We describe and evaluate the implementation and impact of an interprofessional surgical teaching forum and explore the motivations for learning and personal learning outcomes from the general surgery multidisciplinary team. Methods A weekly teaching program was established, by a coordinating team of educators, with the option to attend in-person or virtually. Educational activities included journal clubs, M&M meetings, and quality improvement presentations. Feedback from participants was collected via an online form to assess the quality of teaching and identify key learning points and self-reported motivations for attendance. Results Data were collected from 88 interprofessional attendees over ten sessions. The forum was well-received, with average ratings of 4.72±0.55/5 for material quality and 4.67±0.60/5 for delivery quality. Motivations for attending varied across grades and disciplines, and included continued professional development, specific interest in topics, team-building and interdisciplinary collaboration. The majority of learning points centred on new management strategies and awareness of specific guidelines, with suggestion of resultant changes in clinical practice. Conclusions We describe successful implementation of an interdisciplinary surgical teaching forum, with high quality ratings and strong engagement from surgical professionals of all grades. These findings highlight the demand for interprofessional education within surgery and emphasise the need for multidisciplinary collaboration in both attending and organising such activities.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lonergan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: