http://informahealthcare.com/jic ISSN: 1356-1820 (print), 1469-9567 (electronic) J Interprof Care, Early Online: 1–3 ! 2014 Informa UK Ltd. DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2014.967337 SHORT REPORT Perceptions of interprofessional education and practice within a complementary and alternative medicine institution Gena E. Kadar 1 , Andrew Vosko 2 , Michael Sackett 3 and H. Garrett Rush Thompson 4 1 Division of Integrative Health Sciences, 2 Department of Basic Sciences and 3 Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, USA, and 4 Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, Tempe, USA Abstract A survey of the constituents of a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) institution was conducted to identify perceptions of interprofessional education (IPE) and practice (IPP). A 22 question survey was developed and administered to: chiropractic students, acupuncture and oriental medicine students, faculty and alumni of both professions, staff and administra- tors. The majority of the 321 respondents demonstrated positive perceptions of IPE and IPP, however many reported a lack of understanding of the distinct roles of select healthcare professions. The study also suggested that the campus community is not homogenous in its understanding of CAM or allopathic professions, or is it homogenous in its understanding of IPE and IPP. While the overall positive attitudes toward IPE and IPP imply a willingness to improve collaboration between these groups, the lack of understanding of profession-specific roles must be addressed to support effective implementation of IPE. Keywords Acupuncture, attitudes of health personnel, chiropractic, complementary and alternative medicine, interprofessional education, interprofessional practice History Received 7 December 2013 Revised 17 July 2014 Accepted 16 September 2014 Published online 7 October 2014 Introduction The goal of interprofessional education (IPE) is to build understanding, trust and respect among students from multiple healthcare professions. IPE prepares students for successful interprofessional practice (IPP) that involves a collaborative and coordinated approach to shared decision-making resulting in improved patient outcomes. While many allopathic healthcare institutions participate in IPE, our review of the literature revealed that the majority of reports on IPE initiatives exclude comple- mentary and alternative medicine (CAM). With approximately 38% of U.S. adults utilizing CAM, (Barnes, Bloom, & Nahin, 2008), the limited inclusion of CAM in IPE programs contributes to the emergence, or continuance, of professional bias that could be detrimental to patient outcomes. In recognizing the need for improved IPE both within our CAM academic institution (offering doctor of chiropractic – DC, master of acupuncture and oriental medicine (MAOM) degrees, dual DC and MAOM degrees) and in conjunction with other conventional and health care institutions, we convened a taskforce on IPE as part of the university’s strategic plan. Recognizing that attitudes held by members of the campus community influence success of IPE initiatives, the taskforce conducted a survey to identify existing perceptions of IPE and IPP and identify areas of concern prior to formulating recommendations for implementation. This study addressed if there was (1) acceptance of IPE by the campus community; (2) a difference in perceptions of IPE based on affiliation/role with the institution; (3) acceptance of IPP by the campus community; (4) a difference in perceptions of IPP based on affiliation/role with the institution; and (5) homogenous understanding of CAM and allopathic professions. Methods A 22-question survey was developed to measure perceptions of IPE and IPP among constituents of a CAM institution. Select questions were adapted from the validated ‘‘Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS) Questionnaire’’ (Parsell & Bligh, 1999; Reid, Bruce, Allstaff, & McLernon, 2006). Additional survey questions were developed by taskforce mem- bers and examined for face validity. The instrument used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ (1) to ‘‘strongly agree’’ (5) for 18 questions. One ‘‘yes/no’’ question asked if the respondent understood the role of each of twelve different healthcare groups. Three internal validation questions were removed from the final analysis. Data collection The survey was anonymous and administered to students, faculty and alumni from the DC, AOM master and dual degree programs. Additionally, surveys were administered to university staff, administrators, and the Board of Regents. Faculty (n ¼ 55; 86%) voluntarily completed the paper survey in October 2012 during a faculty development session. All others (n ¼ 267) completed the survey questionnaire online between October and November 2012 using a link to SurveyMonkey Õ that was distributed via email. Specifically, the number of respondents (and percent response) were: 95 out of 544 DC students (17.5%), 23 out of 142 AOM students (16.2%), 10 out of 30 administrative staff (33.3%), 3 out of 13 board members (23%) and 133 out of 7503 alumni (1.8%). IRB approval was obtained before the study commenced. Correspondence: Dr Gena E. Kadar DC, Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, USA. E-mail: genakadar@scuhs.edu J Interprof Care Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by 4.31.49.194 on 10/07/14 For personal use only.