Ten SoPs (32%) responded. Table 2 lists the academic roles of respondents.

Table 2 Respondent’s role in school of pharmacy (n = 10)Quantitative results

Respondents reported various healthcare professional programmes taught at their institution, with 60% (n = 6) offering pharmacy, medicine, and nursing programmes.

A wide range of professional disciplines were included in campus-based activities—medicine, nursing, midwifery, dentistry, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, dietetics, speech and language therapy, psychology, physician associate, dental and hygiene therapy, diagnostic radiography, biomedical science, paramedic science, food and nutritional science, social care, law, NHS technicians. Contrastingly, those disciplines involved in planned practice-based IPE activities were limited to medicine, nursing and podiatry. Disciplines not involved in either campus-based or practice-based IPE included veterinary science and teaching.

Most respondents (n = 8; 80%) reported an interprofessional steering group overseeing the development of IPE initiatives; additionally, 90% (n = 9) reported that IPE content was based on the CAIPE “Interprofessional Education Guidelines” [9]. All ten respondents reported that IPE delivery was a compulsory requirement; one SoP offered additional voluntary activities, another both additional voluntary and elective activities. The requirement and nature of activities that student pharmacists had to complete before participating in IPE initiatives varied with 50% (n = 5) of respondents reporting student pharmacists completed an individual online activity; other approaches included completion of an internally developed pre-activity survey (n = 1; 10%), pre-reading (n = 1; 10%) and communication with group members before the actual IPE session (n = 1;10%).

Most respondents used formative and summative assessment with approaches varying depending on the year of study. Staff feedback was the most used approach for formative assessment, followed by peer feedback. One respondent referred to patient educator feedback and a reflective exercise completed in third year. Summative assessment methods included reflective exercises, group presentation, portfolio, and Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) (Table 3).

Table 3 Assessment approaches (n = 10)

A variety of mechanisms was used to evaluate IPE activities. These included published/validated student surveys (n = 1; 10%), internally developed student surveys (n = 10; 100%), student verbal feedback (n = 5; 50%), academic staff/facilitator surveys (n = 3; 30%), academic staff/facilitator reports (n = 3; 30%), academic staff/facilitator verbal feedback (n = 8; 80%) and student reflective statements (n = 1; 10%). The purpose of evaluation reported by respondents is included in Table 4.

Table 4 Purpose of evaluationQualitative results

Two main themes were identified from responses to open-ended questions. These are presented in a narrative description linked to components in the Biggs 3P Model and the 3P Model of Learning to Collaborate [26, 27].

Theme 1: variation in interprofessional education approaches and opportunities3P: PROCESS—approaches to learning and teaching: formal/informal learning; campus-based/practice-based learning

Formal teaching/learning was mainly delivered integrated in other modules. Various pedagogic approaches were used for activities delivered on campus to varying extents across all 4 years of the curriculum. These included simulation, online group learning, blended group learning—classroom/online based group discussion and classroom/online case-based discussion, problem-based learning, student–student peer teaching and IPE conferences. Topics included in campus-based IPE activities were patient safety, medication safety, Human Factors/systems thinking, mental health, person-centred care, ethical dilemmas, public health, cultural awareness, specialist clinical areas, values-based practice, communication skills and collaborative practice. Other topics included numeracy skills and professional negligence.

Some respondents referred to planned practice-based IPE activities; these involved second and third year medical and nursing students, second year podiatry students and third year medical students with some initiatives still at pilot stage. Please refer to supplementary material.

Informal teaching/learning was mainly referred to in the context of placements.

“Our formal IPE sessions are based at the university. However, in the placements, we encourage our students to find out the role of various practitioners in caring for patients. They also observe how a pharmacist interacts within a multidisciplinary team”. (SoP1)

Overall, respondents agreed that practice-based experiential learning placements provided many opportunities for unplanned IPE. However, more preparation and planning may be required to ensure opportunities are not missed; one response referred to the importance of student pharmacists identifying and acting on these opportunities.

“Students on our placements in the future will be required to actively seek these opportunities/collaborative moments. Evidence for their portfolio would be required”. (SoP4)

Another respondent raised the issue of the equitable nature of these unplanned IPE opportunities.

“Lots, this is encouraged, but the problem is that this is an uneven experience, so [some] placements have lots and others don't, depending on the nature of the placements”. (SoP9)

Again, there was a varied response to how much time was allocated to campus-based IPE in the MPharm programme. This ranged from 1.5 to 9+ hours in first year to 4 to 15 h in the final year of study (Table 5).

Table 5 Timetabled campus-based IPETheme 2: factors influencing development and implementation of IPE in MPharm programmes3P: PRESAGE—context: political climate

Issues were highlighted regarding organisational culture around IPE; the view being that a broader approach is needed both at university level and across education, health, and social care sectors to ensure the success of IPE initiatives.

“To do IPE properly there needs to be a cross university initiative, allowing a drive to implement across a range of programmes. Otherwise, it is just a piecemeal and sometimes disjointed activity, using what is available rather than what is desirable. Schools and courses can decide to drop in and out when they wish, regardless of the effect on others thus keeping going can be a battle, let alone developing further”. (SoP9)

3P: PRESAGE—context: regulatory frameworks

Some respondents referred to the requirement by the GPhC articulating the inclusion of IPE initiatives in the undergraduate curriculum.

“We feel we deliver a rich and varied programme of activities which fully engage our students. My main concern is that the GPhC continue to quantify IPE in simplistic terms of the number of hours students spend together. We firmly believe that it's not amount of time but quality of time that is key - quality, not quantity”. (SoP7)

3P: PRESAGE—context: funding

Respondents reported challenges encountered during the development and delivery of campus-based initiatives included a lack of resources and funding. Cost was also reported to be a challenge encountered during the development and delivery of practice-based IPE initiatives. A respondent commented that there are opportunities for unplanned IPE in practice-based placements, but those possibilities were dependent on available funding.

“Yes, there are opportunities [for unplanned IPE within practice-based placements] but that is based on the assumption that practice-based placements are a possibility for a SOP where funding and resource is limited”. (SoP3)

3P: PRESAGE—context: space and time constraints; competing curricular demands

Several respondents referred to challenges in this context both for campus-based and practice-based activities; these included availability of IPE facilitators including practice-based facilitators, increased staff workload and room availability. One respondent commented that several issues were eased through online delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic, however this led to new challenges.

“Some of these issues were eased through remote delivery in COVID. However online interaction brings different challenges”. (SoP5)

Challenges around logistics and timetabling were mentioned by most respondents for developing/delivering campus-based and practice-based activities.

3P: PRESAGE—teacher/programme developer characteristics: conceptions of learning and teaching; conceptions of collaboration; learner perceptions; enthusiasm

A challenge identified by respondents during the development and delivery of practice-based initiatives was staff “buy-in” and practice facilitators (pharmacists) resistance to engage with facilitating sessions. A respondent reported that this extended to other disciplines in the clinical environment, due to the perceived impact on the experience of other healthcare professional students.

“Enthusiastic keen practitioners are on board however difficult to persuade those tutors with less experience to take this on”. (SoP5)

“Medical programme not keen to support IPE in the practice environment as it is perceived that this would reduce the learning value of their students”. (SoP3)

3P: PRESAGE—teacher/programme developer characteristics: teacher’s expertise

The nature and extent of training offered to academic staff, practice-based facilitators and student facilitators varied. Several respondents replied “not applicable” to the latter as peer-teaching was not included in their IPE programme. The different approaches to training provision for academic staff ranged from synchronous online training, briefings, face-to-face training, tailored training to individual IPE sessions, facilitator guides, training video to no training at all. Training provided to practice-based facilitators was more limited.

“None, other than shadowing other staff if they are new members of staff”. (SoP8)