Undergraduate Interprofessional Education for Patient Safety: A Scoping Review

Review
Undergraduate interprofessional educational interventions targeting
patient safety competencies: A scoping review
Sylvain Bolor´ e
a,b,*
, Katherine Blondon
c,d,e
, Laura Ciavarella
a
, Im` ene Khetir
b,f
,
H´ el` ene Lali` ere
b,f
, Maud Elmaleh-Morand
a
, Alexandra Szarzynski Blocquet
a,e
, Patrick Lavoie
b,f
a
Geneva School of Health Sciences, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Av. de Champel 47, 1206, Geneva, Switzerland
b
Faculty of Nursing, Universit´ e de Montr´ eal, Pavillon Marguerite-d’Youville, C.P. 6128 Succ. Centre-Ville, Montr´ eal, QC, H3C 3J7, Canada
c
Centre for Interprofessional Simulation, Av. de Champel 7, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland
d
University of Geneva, Faculty of Medicine, Rue Michel-Servet 1, 1206, Geneva, Switzerland
e
Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1205, Geneva, Switzerland
f
Montreal Heart Institute, 5000 rue B´ elanger, Montr´ eal, QC, H1T 1C8, Canada
ARTICLE INFO
Keywords:
Health occupations students
Interprofessional education
Patient safety
Review
Undergraduate medical education
ABSTRACT
Background: Undergraduate healthcare students are expected to develop patient safety competencies to reduce
preventable harm. This scoping review is intended to map the scope, characteristics, and outcomes of inter-
professional patient safety educational interventions for undergraduate students and areas for improvement.
Method: Following the JBI scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this review included studies
involving undergraduate healthcare students from at least 2 professions, focusing on empirically assessed patient
safety competencies. A comprehensive search of 5 databases and grey literature, conducted without time re-
strictions, identied 20 eligible studies spanning 2009-2024. Data were extracted and synthesized narratively,
with methodological quality assessed using standardized tools.
Results: Interprofessional patient safety education was predominantly delivered through experiential, simulation-
based, and team-oriented strategies, targeting communication and teamwork competencies. Storytelling-based
learning and peer-led training showed promise in enhancing empathy, leadership, and collaboration. Howev-
er, critical domains such as error management, safety culture, and human and system factors remained under-
represented. Most studies used quasi-experimental designs with variable methodological quality. While a few
studies reported short-term behavior changes (Kirkpatrick Level 3), none evaluated long-term changes at Level 3
or patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick Level 4).
Conclusion: Interprofessional education enhances certain foundational patient safety competencies but lacks
emphasis on system-level competencies. Future research should prioritize standardized evaluation tools and
longitudinal studies. Integrating diverse educational strategies—such as storytelling, peer-led learning, hybrid
simulation models combining virtual and in-person learning, and patient partnerships in education—could
improve accessibility, engagement, and the development of system-level competencies in patient safety.
1. Introduction
The incidence of preventable harm remains alarmingly high. Ac-
cording to a 2019 meta-analysis involving 70 studies and 337,025 pa-
tients across various healthcare settings, more than 1 in 20 patients
experience preventable harm due to unsafe care.
1
Unsafe care is
associated with approximately 2.6 million deaths annually.
2
From an
economic perspective, unsafe care costs healthcare systems over 1000
billion USD annually, accounting for approximately 13% of healthcare
expenditures in developed countries.
3
Reducing errors in healthcare requires a multifaceted approach,
including robust quality and risk management systems, strong
* Corresponding author. Geneva School of Health Sciences, HES-SO University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland, Av. de Champel 47, 1206,
Geneva, Switzerland.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Bolor´ e), [email protected] (K. Blondon), [email protected] (L. Ciavarella), imene.khetir@
umontreal.ca (I. Khetir), [email protected] (H. Lali` ere), [email protected] (M. Elmaleh-Morand), [email protected]
(A.S. Blocquet), [email protected] (P. Lavoie).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jiep
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2026.100818
Received 19 February 2025; Received in revised form 24 February 2026; Accepted 16 April 2026
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 44 (2026) 100818
Available online 25 April 2026
2405-4526/© 2026 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ).

leadership and organizational practices, and supportive policies. These
must be complemented by teamwork, communication, system optimi-
zation, and safety culture, with education playing a central role in
preparing healthcare professionals. Over the past decade, numerous
initiatives have emphasized developing patient safety competencies in
healthcare professionals.
4
Patient safety competencies refer to the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes that healthcare professionals proac-
tively and reactively apply to prevent and identify risks, manage in-
cidents, mitigate their consequences, and foster a safety culture in
healthcare. Notably, the Canadian Safety Competencies Framework
(CSCF),
5
the World Health Organization (WHO),
4
and the Australian
Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care (ACSQHC)
6
have
proposed frameworks for patient safety competencies. These frame-
works are multiprofessional in scope and encompass inherently collab-
orative domains such as teamwork, communication, and human and
system factors. Table 1 compares these frameworks, highlighting their
commonalities and relevance to healthcare education.
2. Background
Activity theorists have highlighted how fragmentation in healthcare
systems poses a particular challenge for patient care. They stress the
importance of establishing a shared language and mental models among
healthcare professionals,
7
as communication failures have been identi-
ed as a leading cause of preventable patient harm.
8
The key solution in
the healthcare system could be enhanced interprofessionality. Empirical
studies support this, showing that higher interprofessional collaboration
levels are associated with improved patient safety outcomes. For
instance, interprofessional practices have been linked to shorter hospital
stays,
9
reduced surgical site infections,
10
fewer readmissions,
11
and
lower incidences of pressure ulcers and patient falls.
12
Moreover,
healthcare professionals perceive increased patient safety when working
in more interprofessional contexts.
13
The importance of such interpro-
fessional strategies extends to education, as shared learning breaks
down silos and fosters collaboration.
14
Despite these promising results, a critical gap exists in understanding
how interprofessional education shapes patient safety competencies and
contributes to clinical outcomes. Educators face a fundamental question:
which interprofessional patient safety educational interventions yield
the most effective outcomes regarding patient safety competencies? As
dened by the WHO, “Interprofessional education occurs when students
from 2 or more professions learn about, from, and with each other to
enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes” (p. 8-
10).
15
Although a trend of educational development in patient safety is
observable,
16
literature at the undergraduate level underscores limita-
tions. These include challenges in integrating patient safety topics, in-
consistencies in evaluation processes, and a predominant focus on
single-profession approaches. For medical students, signicant differ-
ences have been observed in how patient safety education is designed
and evaluated,
16
often leading to variable learning outcomes.
17
In
nursing, patient safety education is usually more implicit than explicit.
18
Students frequently lack understanding of their role in patient safety and
the support needed to speak up about patient safety concerns.
19
Simi-
larly, pharmacy education lacks standardized patient safety content
despite evidence of improved student perceptions and attitudes through
interprofessional approaches.
20
Whereas teamwork and communication
are often prioritized, other patient safety domains—such as managing
errors or addressing system-level risks—are frequently overlooked in
interprofessional education efforts.
21
Most studies involving undergraduate students have primarily
examined Levels 1 and 2 of the Kirkpatrick evaluation model (i.e.,
participant satisfaction, attitudes/perceptions, and knowledge/skill
acquisition). Various validated instruments have been developed to
assess patient safety competencies, including tools applicable across
health professions.
22,23
However, heterogeneity in measurement ap-
proaches remains a barrier to synthesizing ndings across studies.
24
To our knowledge, only one literature review published before 2019
has involved examining undergraduate interprofessional patient safety
education.
25
However, it was focused exclusively on medical students
associated with other professional groups, overlooking studies in which
interprofessional education was provided without the participation of
medical students. In light of the WHO Global Action Plan for Patient
Safety (2021-2030), which underscores the importance of interprofes-
sional education to enhance patient safety,
2
it is imperative to map the
existing literature on undergraduate interprofessional patient safety
education.
This scoping review addresses these gaps by mapping the scope and
characteristics of interprofessional educational interventions to improve
patient safety competencies among undergraduate healthcare students.
Specically, it is intended to identify the types of interventions, their
design and implementation, and their outcomes, providing a foundation
for future educational and research initiatives.
The review questions were as follows:
1) What are the characteristics of studies on interprofessional educa-
tional interventions to improve undergraduate healthcare students'
patient safety competencies?
2) What are the characteristics of interprofessional educational in-
terventions designed to promote patient safety competencies?
3) What learning outcomes related to patient safety competencies are
assessed in these studies?
4) What are the reported effects of the interventions on these outcomes?
5) What learning outcomes, beyond patient safety competencies, are
assessed in the context of these educational interventions?
3. Methods
3.1. Protocol and registration
The authors followed the JBI methodology for scoping reviews
26
in
line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).
27
The
protocol has been registered in https://osf.io/863sh/
Table 1
Domains and commonalities of 3 patient safety competency frameworks.
CSCF (2008, 2020) WHO (2011) ACSQHC (2011, 2021)
- Communication. - Communication.
- Culture of safety. - Patient safety
concepts.
- Optimize human and
system factors.
- Human factors. 
- Systems approach.
- Recognize, respond to, and
disclose patient safety
incidents.
- Recognize and respond
to acute deterioration.
- Safety, risk, and quality
improvement.
- Clinical risk
management.
- Quality
improvement.
- Teamwork - Teamwork 
- Patient
engagement.
- Partnering with
consumers.
- Infection
prevention and
control.
- Infection prevention
and control.
- Medication safety. - Medication safety.
- Blood management.
- Learning from
errors.
  - Comprehensive care.
  - Clinical governance.
Note. ACSQHC: Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care;
CSCF: Canadian Safety Competencies Framework; WHO: World Health
Organization.
S. Bolor´ e et al.
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 44 (2026) 100818
2

3.2. Inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria
3.2.1. Participants
This review was focused on studies involving undergraduate
healthcare students. Only studies in which undergraduates represented
at least half of the participants were included to maintain a clear focus
on undergraduate education. Studies involving predominantly post-
graduate students or professionals were excluded.
3.2.2. Concept
The concept of interest was patient safety education, emphasizing
developing competencies across multiple domains. Studies were
included if they addressed at least 2 competency domains: the CSCF,
5
the ACSQHC,
6
or the WHO patient safety framework.
4
Domains were
interpreted based on conceptual correspondence across frameworks, as
outlined in Table 1. Additionally, studies were required to assess
learning outcomes using empirical evaluation methods to ensure the
reliability and relevance of the ndings. In contrast, studies narrowly
focusing on specic aspects of patient safety (e.g., the use of a single
technique such as Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation
[SBAR]) were excluded, as they did not encompass the broader scope of
patient safety education.
3.2.3. Context
The context was centered on interprofessional educational in-
terventions involving participants from at least 2 distinct healthcare
professions. Studies in which the educational intervention was not
interprofessional were excluded because they did not align with the
focus of this review.
3.2.4. Types of sources
The review included experimental and quasi-experimental studies,
such as randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, before-and-
after studies, interrupted time series, and posttest-only designs. Obser-
vational studies, including cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional
studies, were also eligible, along with mixed-methods studies. Studies
lacking quantitative or empirically assessed learning outcomes relevant
to patient safety educational interventions were excluded, including
those relying solely on qualitative methods, as the review aimed to map
and compare measurable learning outcomes across competency domains
and Kirkpatrick evaluation levels.
3.3. Database search
The search strategy was intended to locate published and unpub-
lished studies without date restrictions. In Step 1, an initial limited
search was conducted in CINAHL (via EBSCO) and MEDLINE (via
PubMed) to identify key articles and terms. Step 2 involved a compre-
hensive search using the identied keywords and index terms, adapted
to databases including CINAHL, Embase (including MEDLINE and
PubMed-not-MEDLINE), Cochrane Library, ERIC (via Ovid), and APA
PsycInfo (via Ovid). Google Scholar was also used to capture grey
literature. Finally, in Step 3, the reference lists of all included papers
were manually reviewed to identify additional eligible studies.
The databases were consulted on September 2, 2024. Studies pub-
lished in any language were included. The full search equations are
available in Appendix A.
3.4. Study selection
All identied citations were uploaded to Covidence (Veritas Health
Innovation, Melbourne, Australia), and duplicates were removed. A
pilot test rened the source selection guidelines. Each article was
independently screened by two reviewers, randomly selected from the
following group: SB, LC, IK, HL, ME, AS, and PL, using the eligibility
criteria. Two reviewers (SB, LC) independently assessed the full text of
selected citations. Articles excluded were documented with reasons for
exclusion. Any disagreements between reviewers were resolved through
discussion or with a third reviewer.
3.5. Assessment of methodological quality
Two reviewers (SB and LC) independently evaluated the methodo-
logical quality of eligible studies using standardized JBI tools,
28
resolving disagreements through discussion. Design-specic JBI critical
appraisal checklists were applied according to study type. Appraisal
results were used descriptively to contextualize the ndings and were
not employed as exclusion criteria.
3.6. Data extraction
Two reviewers (SB, LC) independently extracted data on study
characteristics, intervention details, and outcomes using a standardized
approach based on the Guideline for Reporting Evidence-Based Practice
Educational Interventions and Teaching and Meinema et al.’s check-
list,
29,30
which emphasizes comprehensive descriptions of interventions.
When patient safety competency domains were not explicitly stated by
the study authors, reported learning objectives, outcome measures, and
assessment instruments were examined and mapped deductively to the
CSCF, WHO, or ACSQHC competency domains. Discrepancies were
resolved through discussion.
3.7. Data synthesis
A structured narrative synthesis was conducted in accordance with
JBI guidance for scoping reviews.
26
Extracted data were rst organized
descriptively according to study and intervention characteristics
(Table 2). Conceptually overlapping domains across the three frame-
works were aligned based on their correspondence (Table 1) to enable
consistent categorization. Teaching methods were then cross-tabulated
with patient safety competency domains to enable structured compari-
son across heterogeneous study designs (Table 3). Reported learning
outcomes and key ndings were summarized (Table 4), and subse-
quently mapped deductively to patient safety competency domains and
categorized according to Kirkpatrick model levels
31
(Level 1: reaction;
Level 2: learning; Level 3: behavior; Level 4: results) (Table 5).
4. Results
4.1. Characteristics of included studies
Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria, spanning publication years
from 2009 to 2024 (Fig. 1). Although studies published in any language
were eligible, all studies meeting the inclusion criteria after screening
were published in English. Most participant groups consisted of medical
and nursing students (n =16). Some studies also included learners from
pharmacy, respiratory therapy, physical therapy, physician assistant,
nutrition and dietetics, occupational therapy, social work, and other
health professions (Table 2). Sample sizes varied widely, ranging from
30 participants
32
to 700.
33
Geographically, most studies were conducted in North America (n =
10), followed by Asia (n =6), Europe (n =2), and Australia (n =2).
Regarding study designs, 19 studies employed quasi-experimental ap-
proaches, 10 adopted mixed-methods designs, and only 1 was an RCT.
34
The included studies’ methodological quality revealed variability
across key criteria such as randomization, participant retention, and the
reliability of measurement tools (Figs. 2 and 3).
4.2. Characteristics of interprofessional educational interventions
Most interventions were intended to enhance interprofessional
competencies, particularly teamwork and communication, while
S. Bolor´ e et al.
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 44 (2026) 100818
3

Table 2
Characteristics of the educational intervention.
Reference
Country
Educational
strategies
Framework Delivery
Teaching method(s) Context
Schedule Setting/Scenarios
Learning objectives Students (Number; Specialty) Teachers (Design; Delivery:
Number, Specialty)
Andersen et al.
(2018)
Australia
- Experiential
learning
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation
- Clinical environment:
Hospital
−2 h per session with 3
simulations
- Not specied
- Not specied - N =30
- Medical (4th-year), Nursing
(3rd-year), Physical Therapy
(3rd-year)*
- Design: A nursing academic,
a medical academic, a senior
physiotherapist, and a
clinical nurse educator
- Delivery: Not specied
Baker et al.
(2013)
USA
- Not specied
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Not specied - Not specied - N =33
- Nursing (1st and 2nd-year),
Medical (2nd-year), Phar-
macy (3rd-year)*
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: Not specied
Beichler et al.
(2024)
Austria
- Experiential
learning
- CRM
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (HF Manikin)
- Clinical environment:
Department of Pediatrics and
Adolescent Medicine
- Not specied
- Pediatric emergency scenario
(Bronchiolitis; Dehydration)
- Not specied - N =108
- Medical (3rd-year), Nursing
(3rd-year)*
§
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: A nursing
academic, a medical
academic
Brewer et al.
(2013)
Australia
- Experiential
learning, Peer
learning
- IP Capability
Framework
- Face-to-Face
- Clinical environment:
placements with peer-to-peer
interaction; daily debriefs;
simulation
- Placement: General medical
ward with 6 beds; Simulation:
In situ
- Placement: 2 to 3 weeks, 8 h
per day
- Not specied
- Identify own KSA, values,
and limitations
- Describe other professional
contributions
- Communicate effectively
with clients, relatives,
professionals
- Work in partnership-
Facilitate and evaluate team
interactions, manage
conict, provide leadership
- N =79
- Pharmacy, Medical, Nursing,
Allied Health*
§
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: Nurse supervisors
(8 h per day), profession-
specic facilitators (mini-
mum of 1.5 h per day).
Brock et al.
(2013)
USA
- Experiential
learning
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (Manikin,
Simulated patient,
Standardized family
member)
- On-campus
- 4-h training block with 1 h of
instruction and 3 simulations
sessions
−1 of 3 scenarios: adult
intensive care, pediatric,
obstetric cases
- Improve understanding of
TeamSTEPPS skills
- Increase students' self-
efcacy
- Promote IP collaboration in
ensuring PS
- N =306
- Medical (174, 4th-year),
Nursing (88, 3rd-year), Phar-
macy (32, 2 nd year), Physi-
cian Assistant (12, 2nd-year)
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: IP facilitators
(faculty from medicine,
nursing, pharmacy, and
Physician Assistant
programs)
Chen et al.
(2022)
Taiwan
- Experiential
learning
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (Manikin)
- On-campus
- 4-week period; 3 h/week for 2
weeks for each component
- Emergency care scenarios
- Not specied - N =54
- Medical (18, 5th-year),
Nursing (36, 3rd-year)
- Design: Physicians, nurse
practitioners, registered
nurses, and a certied
healthcare simulation
educator
- Delivery: Not specied
Cox et al.
(2009)
USA
- Experiential
learning;
Collaborative
learning;
Formative
assessment
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face;
Blended learning
- Case-based learning;
Discussion; Lecture
- On-campus
−4 weeks; 8 h of instruction,
with 2 h of lecture and
additional time for group
work
- Course: Fundamentals of PS
and medical errors; IP group
exercises: RCA
- To understand the concept of
human fallibility and its role
in PS
- To conduct an RCA of errors
- To report errors and near-
misses and how to disclose
them appropriately to pa-
tients and healthcare teams
- To improve teamwork and
communication in an IP
setting
- N >707
- Medical (>440, 2nd-year),
Nursing (>250, 3rd-year),
Health Management and
Informatics (<80, 2nd-year
MSc), Respiratory Therapy
(17, 1st-year)
- Design: Physicians, nurses,
health management faculty
- Delivery: Two national
experts on PS (course design
and delivery); Physicians,
nurses, health management
faculty
Garbee et al.
(2013)
USA
- Experiential
learning
- CRM
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (HF Manikin)
- On-campus
−2 sessions in each semester
−2 emergency care scenarios
(unstable atrial brillation,
tension pneumothorax)
- Not specied - N =52
- Medical, Nursing,
Respiratory Therapy, Nurse
Anesthesia*
§
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: 7 faculty members
Garwood et al.
(2022)
USA
- Cooperative
learning;
Experiential
learning
- Not specied
- Online
- Storytelling; Discussion
- Online: Virtual synchronous
platform (due to COVID-19)
- Half-day six times per year
- Storytelling: Real-life medica-
tion error; Discussion: medi-
cation reconciliation,
prescribing/dispensing pro-
cesses, adverse event analysis,
- Appreciate the impact of
medication errors on
patients, families, and
healthcare professionals
- Understand the process of
selecting, prescribing, and
dispensing medications
- Conduct medication
reconciliation after
discharge
- N =236
- Medical (182, 3rd-year),
Pharmacy (54, 3rd-year)
- Design: faculty members
from the School of Medicine
and College of Pharmacy
- Delivery: Not specied
(continued on next page)
S. Bolor´ e et al.
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 44 (2026) 100818
4

Table 2 (continued )
Reference
Country
Educational
strategies
Framework Delivery
Teaching method(s) Context
Schedule Setting/Scenarios
Learning objectives Students (Number; Specialty) Teachers (Design; Delivery:
Number, Specialty)
disclosure practice, and IP
collaboration
- Analyze adverse events and
practice error disclosure
- Engage in IP collaboration
and communication
Hobgood et al.
(2010)
USA
- Experiential
learning;
Interactive
learning; Passive
learning
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Cohort A: Simulation (HF
Manikin); Cohort B: Role
play; Cohort C: Lecture with
videotaped scenarios,
discussion; Cohort D:
Didactic lecture with
TeamSTEPPS video
- On campus
−90-min lecture for all
students; 60-min teamwork
training sessions by the
assigned group; 20-min
standardized patient assess-
ments with re-randomized 4-
member teams
- Not specied
- Not specied - N =438
- Medical (235, 4th-year);
Nursing (203, 3rd-year)
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: Not specied
Huehn et al.
(2020)
USA
- Experiential
learning; Peer
tutoring
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Case-based learning;
Discussion; Role-play; Stu-
dent-led peer training
- On campus (Classroom)
- 2-h training sessions
- Not specied
- Not specied - N =31
- Nursing (3rd-year), Social
Work (3rd-year)*
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: 2 nursing students
and 1 social work student
selected as trainers
participated in ve 2-h
training sessions over 1
month by 2 nursing faculty
members
Hwang et al.
(2016)
South Korea
- Experiential
learning
- H-PEPSS; WHO PS
curriculum
- E-learning; Face-
to-Face
- Case-based learning;
Discussion; Lecture; Online
lecture with video
- On campus, Online
components
- 1-day course
- Not specied
- To improve students'
competencies for PS
- N =233
- Medical (51), Nursing (3rd-
year, 75), Traditional Korean
Medical (107)
§
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: Not specied
King et al.
(2014)
Canada
- Experiential
learning
- Not specied
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (HF Manikin,
Simulated patients)
- On campus
- One-hour simulation of
anaphylaxis reaction or 3-h
simulation of homecare
discharge planning
- Postoperative anaphylaxis
scenario (Manikin) or
Homecare discharge planning
scenario (Simulated patient)
- Not specied - N =73
- Medical (8), Nursing (22),
Respiratory Therapy (22),
Nutrition dietetics (6),
Physical Therapy (3),
Occupational Therapy (2),
Pharmacy (1), Health Care
Aide (6), Physical Therapy
Aide and Occupational
Therapy Aide (3)
§
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: Not specied
Kleib et al.
(2021)
Canada
- Experiential
learning
- CIHC
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (HF Manikin)
- On campus
- One-day
−8 respiratory care scenarios
- Not specied - N =36
- Nursing (18), Respiratory
Therapy (18)
§
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: Experienced
simulation educators from
Nursing and Respiratory
Therapy (n =8)
Krielen et al.
(2023)
Netherlands
- Experiential
learning
- Not specied
- Face-to-Face
- Simulation (Manikin)
- On campus
- 3-h sessions
−3 scenarios of clinical
deterioration
- Increase IP communication,
collaboration, teamwork,
and insight in IP team
members' qualities and
pitfalls
- N =191
- Medical (131, 6th-year),
Nursing (60, 4th-year)
- Design: Not specied
- Delivery: A Physician, a
Registered nurse per session
Lau et al.
(2019)
Singapore
- Experiential
learning
- IECPCP;
TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Interactive lecture;
Simulation (HF manikin)
- On campus
- Two-day training: lectures
and 9 simulation stations
- Resuscitation scenarios
- Lecture: To introduce new
knowledge according to
ACLS algorithms
- Simulation: To allow
Nursing and Medical
students to apply the
knowledge and skills using
different scenarios
- N ≈450 (approximately)
80 teams.
- Each team comprised 3-4
Medical (5th-year) and 2-3
Nursing (4th-year)*
- Design: 3 senior consultants
- Delivery: 12 certied ACLS
instructors (advanced-
practice nurses and
physicians)
Mahmood
et al. (2021)
India
- Experiential
learning
- TeamSTEPPS
- Face-to-Face
- Lecture; Simulation (HF
manikin); Work group
- On campus
- 4-h
- Exercises and didactic session
on TeamSTEPPS between 2
simulations (Trauma
scenarios)
- To improve IP teamwork and
communication skills
- N =40
- Medical, Nursing (Nurse to
doctor student ratio was 3:2)
*
§
- Design: 8 faculty members
- Delivery: 8 faculty
members.
(continued on next page)
S. Bolor´ e et al.
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice 44 (2026) 100818
5