Background: There is agreement among educators and professional bodies that interprofessional education needs to be implemented at the pre-registration level. We performed a systematic review assessing interprofessional learning interventions, measuring attitudes towards interprofessional education and involving pre-registration medical students across all years of medical education. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed using PubMed, PsycINFO, EThOS, EMBASE, PEDro and SCOPUS. Search terms were composed of interprofession*, interprofessional education, inter professional, inter professionally, IPE, and medical student. Inclusion criteria were 1) the use of a validated scale for assessment of attitudes towards IPE, and results for more than 35 medical students; 2) peer-reviewed articles in English and German, including medical students; and 3) results for IPE interventions published after the 2011 Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) report. We identified and screened 3995 articles. After elimination of duplicates or non-relevant topics, 278 articles remained as potentially relevant for full text assessment. We used a data extraction form including study designs, training methods, participant data, assessment measures, results, and medical year of participants for each study. A planned comprehensive meta-analysis was not possible. Results: This systematic review included 23 articles with a pre-test-post-test design. Interventions varied in their type and topic. Duration of interventions varied from 25 min to 6 months, and interprofessional groups ranged from 2 to 25 students. Nine studies (39%) reported data from first-year medical students, five (22%) from second-year students, six (26%) from third-year students, two (9%) from fourth-year students and one (4%) from sixth-year students. There were no studies including fifth-year students. The most frequently used assessment method was the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) (n = 6, 26%). About half of study outcomes showed a significant increase in positive attitudes towards interprofessional education after interventions across all medical years. Conclusions: This systematic review showed some evidence of a post-intervention change of attitudes towards IPE across different medical years studied. IPE was successfully introduced both in pre-clinical and clinical years of the medical curriculum. With respect to changes in attitudes to IPE, we could not demonstrate a difference between interventions delivered in early and later years of the curriculum. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020160964.

Summary: Pulmonary aspiration of gastric content is a significant cause of anaesthesia‐related morbidity and mortality. High‐quality prospective randomised evidence to support prevention strategies, such as rapid sequence intubation, is difficult to generate due to well‐described practical, ethical and methodological barriers. We aimed to generate an understanding of worldwide practice through surveying clinically practicing anaesthetists and airway experts. Our survey was designed to assess the influence of: departmental standards; patient factors; socio‐economic factors; training; and supervision. We surveyed 10,003 anaesthetists who responded to an invitation to participate on LinkedIn. We then surveyed 16 international airway experts on the same content. When asked about a hypothetical patient with intestinal obstruction, respondents expressed preferences for [OR (95% CI )]: the head‐up or ‐down position 4.26 (3.98–4.55), p < 0.001; nasogastric tube insertion 29.5 (26.9–32.3), p < 0.001; and the use of cricoid force 2.80 (2.62–3.00), p < 0.001, as compared with a hypothetical patient without intestinal obstruction also requiring rapid sequence intubation. Respondents from lower income countries were more likely to prefer [OR (95% CI ]: the supine position 2.33 (2.00–2.63), p < 0.001; nasogastric tube insertion 1.29 (1.09–1.51), p = 0.002; and cricoid force application 2.54 (2.09–3.09), p < 0.001 as compared with respondents from higher income countries for a hypothetical patient with intestinal obstruction. This survey, which we believe is the largest of its kind, demonstrates that preferences for positioning, nasogastric tube use and cricoid force application during rapid sequence intubation vary substantially. Achieving agreed consensus may yield better training in the principles of rapid sequence intubation.

Interprofessional Education (IPE) aims to improve students’ attitudes towards collaboration, teamwork, and leads to improved patient care upon graduation. However, the best time to introduce IPE into the undergraduate curriculum is still under debate. We used a mixed-methods design based on a sequential explanatory model. Medical students from all six years at the University of Bern, Switzerland (n = 683) completed an online survey about attitudes towards interprofessional learning using a scale validated for German speakers (G-IPAS). Thirty-one medical students participated in nine semi-structured interviews focusing on their experience in interprofessional learning and on the possible impact it might have on their professional development. Women showed better attitudes in the G-IPAS across all years (p = 0,007). Pre-clinical students showed more positive attitudes towards IPE [Year 1 to Year 3 (p = 0.011)]. Students correctly defined IPE and its core dimensions. They appealed for more organized IPE interventions throughout the curriculum. Students also acknowledged the relevance of IPE for their future professional performance. These findings support an early introduction of IPE into the medical curriculum. Although students realise that interprofessional learning is fundamental to high-quality patient care, there are still obstacles and stereotypes to overcome. ISRCTN 41715934.

Integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into intensive care practices can enhance patient care by providing real-time predictions and aiding clinical decisions. However, biases in AI models can undermine diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, particularly in visual representations of healthcare professionals. This work aims to examine the demographic representation of two AI text-to-image models, Midjourney and ChatGPT DALL-E 2, and assess their accuracy in depicting the demographic characteristics of intensivists. This cross-sectional study, conducted from May to July 2024, used demographic data from the USA workforce report (2022) and intensive care trainees (2021) to compare real-world intensivist demographics with images generated by two AI models, Midjourney v6.0 and ChatGPT 4.0 DALL-E 2. A total of 1,400 images were generated across ICU subspecialties, with outcomes being the comparison of sex, race/ethnicity, and age representation in AI-generated images to the actual workforce demographics. The AI models demonstrated noticeable biases when compared to the actual U.S. intensive care workforce data, notably overrepresenting White and young doctors. ChatGPT-DALL-E2 produced less female (17.3% vs 32.2%, p < 0.0001), more White (61% vs 55.1%, p = 0.002) and younger (53.3% vs 23.9%, p < 0.001) individuals. While Midjourney depicted more female (47.6% vs 32.2%, p < 0.001), more White (60.9% vs 55.1%, p = 0.003) and younger intensivist (49.3% vs 23.9%, p < 0.001). Substantial differences between the specialties within both models were observed. Finally when compared together, both models showed significant differences in the Portrayal of intensivists. Significant biases in AI images of intensivists generated by ChatGPT DALL-E 2 and Midjourney reflect broader cultural issues, potentially perpetuating stereotypes of healthcare worker within the society. This study highlights the need for an approach that ensures fairness, accountability, transparency, and ethics in AI applications for healthcare.

Purpose: This study investigated the application and effectiveness of various self-directed learning (SDL) models in healthcare organizations. This study aims to identify the prevalent SDL models and factors influencing SDL adoption in healthcare settings. Methods: A systematic review was conducted, encompassing a comprehensive search across multiple academic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, and the Cochrane Library). The final search was conducted on April 16, 2024. The inclusion criteria were studies involving health and allied health professionals in clinical settings that explored SDL in any context or form of activity, emphasizing the description and/or use of an SDL model or SDL-related concept. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included. We also explored the factors facilitating or hindering SDL and specific SDL-related outcomes, accommodating various study designs. Results: The final review synthesized findings from 34 articles involving over 5,700 healthcare professionals (including nurses, pharmacists, and physicians). The findings reveal that supportive organizational cultures significantly enhance SDL practices, whereas restrictive policies hinder their effectiveness. Various SDL models were identified and examined, showing that integrative frameworks combining individual motivation with structured organizational support yielded the best outcomes in fostering lifelong learning and adaptability among healthcare professionals. These findings emphasize the significance of individual motivation, learning environment, technological resources, social interactions, and SDL readiness among healthcare professionals. Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that SDL is crucial for the continuous professional development of healthcare providers and should be strategically supported by healthcare organizations. This study contributes to a better understanding of the interplay between SDL, workplace dynamics, and digital technology in healthcare practices. Identifying prevalent SDL models and factors influencing their adoption offers valuable insights for healthcare professionals on effective implementation strategies that address both its barriers and facilitators. Systematic review registration: reviewregistry1309, February 28, 2022 (www.researchregistry.com).