As part of a World Health Organization (WHO) initiative we searched the literature to explore defined learning outcomes for interprofessional education between 1988, when the last WHO technical report on interprofessional education was published, and 2009. We describe and synthesize findings from 88 citations over this 21 year period. There is a variety in the way learning outcomes are presented but there are many similarities between specific outcomes and/or objectives. Papers describing educational interventions do not always include specific outcomes or objectives. Our findings have been integrated into a list of learning outcomes with six categories for further debate and discussion. This project is part of a wider initiative initiated by the WHO in 2007 to review the current position of interprofessional education worldwide. It is also a sub-project of a learning and teaching grant funded by the Carrick Institute for Learning and Teaching within Australia. In this paper we use the CAIPE definition of interprofessional education: “Occasions when two or more professions learn with, from and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care” (Barr, <!--RIDCIT0002--> 2. Barr, H. (2002). Interprofessional education: Today, yesterday and tomorrow. London: Learning and Teaching support Network: Centre for Health Sciences and Practice. View all references ).

Regulatory frameworks around the world mandate that health and social care professional education programs graduate practitioners who have the competence and capability to practice effectively in interprofessional collaborative teams. Academic institutions are responding by offering interprofessional education (IPE); however, there is as yet no consensus regarding optimal strategies for the assessment of interprofessional learning (IPL). The Program Committee for the 17th Ottawa Conference in Perth, Australia in March, 2016, invited IPE champions to debate and discuss the current status of the assessment of IPL. A draft statement from this workshop was further discussed at the global All Together Better Health VIII conference in Oxford, UK in September, 2016. The outcomes of these deliberations and a final round of electronic consultation informed the work of a core group of international IPE leaders to develop this document. The consensus statement we present here is the result of the synthesized views of experts and global colleagues. It outlines the challenges and difficulties but endorses a set of desired learning outcome categories and methods of assessment that can be adapted to individual contexts and resources. The points of consensus focus on pre-qualification (pre-licensure) health professional students but may be transferable into post-qualification arenas.

The individual Teamwork Observation and Feedback Tool (iTOFT) was devised by a consortium of seven universities in recognition of the need for a means of observing and giving feedback to individual learners undertaking an interprofessional teamwork task. It was developed through a literature review of the existing teamwork assessment tools, a discussion of accreditation standards for the health professions, Delphi consultation and field-testing with an emphasis on its feasibility and acceptability for formative assessment. There are two versions: the Basic tool is for use with students who have little clinical teamwork experience and lists 11 observable behaviours under two headings: ‘shared decision making’ and ‘working in a team’. The Advanced version is for senior students and junior health professionals and has 10 observable behaviours under four headings: ‘shared decision making’, ‘working in a team’, ‘leadership’, and ‘patient safety’. Both versions include a comprehensive scale and item descriptors. Further testing is required to focus on its validity and educational impact.

During clinical placements, clinical educators facilitate student learning. Previous research has defined the skills, attitudes and practices that pertain to an ideal clinical educator. However, less attention has been paid to the role of student readiness in terms of foundational knowledge and attitudes at the commencement of practice education. Therefore, the aim of this study was to ascertain clinical educators’ views on the characteristics that they perceive demonstrate that a student is well prepared for clinical learning.

There are diverse perceptions about the primary purpose of evaluation. In interprofessional education (IPE), there has been a perceived focus on evaluating against the outcome of improved collaborative practice and quality of care. This paper presents an exploration of the nature and purpose of evaluation methods commonly utilized in the IPE literature with its focus on outcomes-based evaluation and particularly the Kirkpatrick framework. It categorises recent evaluations of pre-qualification (pre-certification) IPE interventions. Of the 90 studies included, most evaluated soon after the educational intervention, only five specifically referred to an evaluation framework and the most frequently used tool was the RIPLS. There was a noteworthy reliance on students’ self-rated perceptions of their attitudes towards collaborative practice collected through surveys, focus groups and interviews. There appears to be a need to reconsider the type of evaluation required. In conclusion, this paper offers recommendations for evaluation practice that is moving towards realist approaches; describes the longer term effects of interventions on attitudes and behaviour; develops and validates data collection tools including direct observation of practice and more comprehensively engages with all stakeholders to ensure that evaluation activities are not only focused on improving IPE but also on enhancing our understanding of interprofessional practice.

This paper uses (and perhaps abuses) deconstruction to revisit the meanings of collaboration and practice. We start with a description of deconstruction itself, as espoused by Jacques Derrida, and then move onto challenging the notion that words, such as collaboration, can have fixed meanings. And, in the spirit of Derrida, “I can foresee the impatience of the bad reader: this is the way I name or accuse the fearful reader, the reader in a hurry to be determined, decided upon deciding (in order to annul, in other words to bring back to oneself, one has to wish to know in advance what to expect…)” (Derrida, 1987, p. 4 – original italics), we move straight into the text.