A university-wide seed grant program accelerates interprofessional education through faculty and staff engagement

ABSTRACT

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio launched an annual university-wide seed grant program in 2019 to foster innovation in interprofessional education (IPE) and increase IPE opportunities for learners. Program objectives included leveraging hypothesis-driven research to identify sustainable IPE activities for integration into educational programs (i.e. mandated for at least one cohort of learners), increasing scholarly dissemination of IPE efforts, and using pilot data to secure extramural funding. Over the first four funding cycles (2019–2022), US$100,509.00 was awarded to support 22 IPE projects (10 curricular, 12 co-curricular) involving 80 faculty and staff collaborators and over 2,100 student participants. To date, funded projects have yielded nine sustained IPE activities (four of which have been integrated), produced 24 scholarly presentations and three peer-reviewed publications, and contributed to the success of one extramural grant. Barriers experienced are discussed in this report alongside lessons learned and unexpected positive outcomes, including identification of future IPE champions.

KEYWORDS:

• Institutional advancement
• interprofessional education
• interprofessional research
• intramural funding

Introduction

International efforts to improve interprofessional education (IPE) and collaboration have generated powerful momentum for positive change, including consensus terminology, competencies, and accreditation expectations (Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative, 2010; Health Professions Accreditors Collaborative, 2019; Interprofessional Education Collaborative, 2016). These advances have provided shared language and educational goals, which have created the conditions necessary for purposeful growth of IPE at many academic institutions and progress toward realizing Quintuple Aim outcomes (Nundy et al., 2022).

Recently, the IPEC core competencies have been leveraged to develop an assessment instrument capable of measuring institutional characteristics and capacity for high-quality programmatic IPE (Zorek et al., 2022). Institutional infrastructure and commitment – including adequate funding – emerged as central constructs of importance. The consensus guideline published by HPAC also stressed the importance of institutional commitment characterized by, among other variables, dedicated institutional infrastructure and funding (Health Professions Accreditors Collaborative, 2019).

The changing landscape within academic institutions has resulted in an expansion of centralized IPE coordinating structures (Shrader et al., 2022). One key role of such institutional infrastructure includes preparing and supporting faculty charged with developing new IPE curricula. Academic institutions must fund such efforts if they are to produce high-quality, scalable interprofessional projects (Health Professions Accreditors Collaborative, 2019; Shrader et al., 2022; Zorek et al., 2022).

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio’s (UTHSA) Quality Enhancement Plan – Linking Interprofessional Networks for Collaboration (LINC) – established an institutional infrastructure to develop IPE knowledge and skills of all faculty, staff, and students; increase IPE student learning experiences; and integrate IPE activities into formal curricula (University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio UTHSA, n.d.). An annual university-wide seed grant program was developed as one mechanism to advance these goals. This report describes program development, outcomes from the first four funding cycles, barriers experienced, and lessons learned.

Program development, objectives, and quality improvement design

The LINC Seed Grant Program provided up to US$5,000.00 to interprofessional teams of faculty and staff seeking to advance interprofessional knowledge, skills, and behaviors of learners. The primary objective was to leverage hypothesis-driven educational research to accelerate development of IPE. Secondary objectives included generating sustainable IPE (i.e., offered annually) with potential for integration into educational programs (i.e., mandated for at least one cohort of learners); increasing IPE scholarship; and supporting investigators’ efforts to secure extramural funding. Criteria for proposals included collaborators and learners from at least two different schools, strong commitment from school leadership, incorporation of IPEC competencies, and appropriate assessment tools to test hypotheses and measure desired learning outcomes.

A grant submission, review, and award process modeled on those of well-established funding agencies was developed. Applications were reviewed based on feasibility, strength of research design, expertise of team members, and evidence of support from respective schools. Investigators could use funds to purchase educational tools, hire consultants, provide incentives for learner participation, and cover dissemination costs, but they could not use funds to supplement salaries or buy out workload time. Outcomes from funded projects, including sustainability, integration, scholarly dissemination, and extramural grant activities, were tracked through annual reports and follow ups beyond the initial year of funding. To benchmark for future program evaluation, cost per outcome was calculated by dividing the total institutional investment by the number of specific outcomes.

Results

During the 2019–2022 funding cycles, 41 proposals were submitted, and 22 teams involving 81 individuals (80 faculty/staff, 1 student) were awarded a total of US$100,509.00 (average: US$4,568.59). Funded teams ranged in size from 2–7 members (median: 5). Investigators and collaborators represented all schools at UTHSA. Twenty-four percent (19/80) of participating faculty/staff served as a team member on more than one funded project (range: 2–4; median 2). Table 1 shows a breakdown of funded projects by IPE type and sub-type. A near-even distribution of curricular and co-curricular projects were funded, with blended teaching and learning approaches being most common. Descriptions of funded projects are included in the online supplement.

Table 1. Types of LINC Seed grant-funded projects, 2019–2022.

IPE Type^a	IPE Sub-Type^b
	Classroom	Simulation	Clinical	Community	Blended
Curricular (n=10)	2	—	1	—	7^c
Co-Curricular (n=12)	4	—	—	1	7^d

Note. Definitions for IPE types and IPE sub-types are included below.

^aIPE Types: Curricula: IPE activities within formal curricula (e.g., credit-bearing courses, clerkships). Co-Curricular: IPE activities outside formal curricula (i.e., volunteer experiences that augment learning/professional development).

^bIPE Sub-Types: Classroom: IPE activities in a classroom setting, including in-person and online; Simulation: IPE activities in a simulation setting, including in-person and online; Clinical: IPE activities in a clinical setting allowing for practical experiences involving direct patient care; Community: IPE activities in a community-based setting allowing for practical experiences that do not involve direct patient care; Blended: Any combination of IPE sub-types.

^cBlended Curricular IPE Projects: 4 classroom/simulation, 2 classroom/clinical, 1 classroom/community.

^dBlended Co-Curricular IPE Projects: 3 classroom/simulation, 4 classroom/community.

Eighteen projects totaling US$80,509.00 and involving over 2,100 students funded in the 2019, 2020, and 2021 cycles were assessed for sustainability, integration, and scholarly dissemination. Projects funded in 2022 were excluded from this analysis as they have yet to be completed. Students from 13 professions participated: biobehavioral science, clinical and translational science, dentistry, dietetics, medicine, nursing, occupational therapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, physician assistant studies, public health, respiratory care, and speech-language pathology. As shown in Figure 1, two projects (11%) were not implemented due to loss of key personnel. The majority of projects were completed within a year with extensions granted under extenuating circumstances. Fifty percent (9/18) of projects have been classified as sustained, yielding a cost of US$8,945.44 per sustained project, and 22% (4/18) have been integrated as mandatory for at least one cohort of learners, yielding a cost of US$20,127.25 per integrated IPE activity.

Figure 1. LINC Seed Grant Program Outcomes, 2019-2021.

Note. Percentages based on 18 funded projects totaling US$80,509 with sustained defined as IPE activities offered annually since funded and integrated defined as IPE activities that were mandated for at least one cohort of learners.

Funded projects in the 2019–2021 cycles have resulted in 24 scholarly presentations to date—3 international, 14 national, and 7 regional – yielding a cost of US$3,354.54 per scholarly presentation. Three peer-reviewed manuscripts based on funded projects have been published to date (US$26,836.33 per published manuscript). Pilot data from one project was incorporated into a larger application for extramural funding that was secured.

Five faculty members who participated in the program have subsequently taken on formal roles within LINC. One of the co-first authors of this manuscript, who now leads the LINC Seed Grant Program, came to this role through a funded seed grant project. Another awardee led a university-wide simulation organized through LINC, which was completed by 769 students in spring 2023 and also led to a publication in the New England Journal of Medicine (Velasquez et al., 2022).

Discussion

Internal grant programs have demonstrated success at other institutions; however, descriptions in the literature are limited. A 2021 report from a mid-sized liberal arts university described the use of external funding to support an internal grant program similar to the LINC Seed Grant Program (Okstad & Dahlk, 2021). Despite positive results – 23 IPE projects, 6 manuscript submissions, and 36 conference presentations – this internal grant program was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic. A survey by the American Interprofessional Health Collaborative found that faculty leadership and engagement in IPE were either under-resourced or not resourced (Shrader et al., 2022). Authors recommended dedicated budgetary allocation to support faculty effort in expanding IPE activities. Given this context, the LINC Seed Grant Program stands as a unique demonstration of institutional commitment to IPE.

The LINC Seed Grant Program has fostered development of innovative IPE projects that collectively address unmet educational needs. In doing so, the program has contributed meaningfully to the university’s strategic vision, which includes teamwork and collaboration as core values. The program is currently in its fifth funding cycle with plans to keep it in place, in part due to several unanticipated benefits. For example, university-wide outreach and internal communications linked to the program (e.g., promotional materials, announcements of awardees) have been a positive mechanism to reinforce the importance of IPE, interprofessional teamwork and collaboration, and LINC.

One of the major unanticipated positive outcomes of the LINC Seed Grant Program has been its ability to identify new IPE faculty leaders within LINC. Several funded investigators’ seed grant experiences intensified their interest and passion for IPE. As a result, many have sought opportunities to join LINC in a formal capacity. Investing in individual faculty and staff members who may be at an exploratory stage within their IPE journeys, in other words, has paid dividends to transform mere interest in IPE into longer-term commitment and contribution to LINC.

Sustainability and integration of funded IPE activities were secondary objectives of the LINC Seed Grant Program. As our results indicate, the program did not produce the kind of financial return-on-investment in these areas that – if considered in isolation from other positive outcomes – would provide a singular justification for its continuation. Investigators who faced difficulty in implementing and sustaining funded projects were contacted to discuss issues and identify potential barriers. Impediments shared included conflicting student schedules, faculty turnover or retirement, graduation of student IPE leaders, and lack of funding beyond the first year. Such barriers warrant further examination.

As it relates to the slower-than-anticipated conversion of awardees’ presentations into peer-reviewed publications, several issues worthy of attention were also identified; these included time and resource limitations, un-sustained collaborator partnerships, and lack of familiarity navigating IPE journals. In response, we designed and launched an annual faculty development program focused on these barriers – the LINC Writers’ Workshop – in 2022 (Brown et al., 2022). With 26 participants to date, we anticipate several new manuscript submissions in the coming years.

Conclusion

The LINC Seed Grant Program has increased IPE opportunities for learners, encouraged faculty and staff engagement in IPE, and advanced the university’s strategic vision. Unanticipated benefits – including the identification and activation of new IPE leaders and champions – have provided an additional justification to continue investing in this program despite lower-than-anticipated integration, peer-reviewed publications, and extramural funding. Future study of sustainability for this and similar programs is needed.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank Casey Redish, LINC Project Coordinator, for her assistance in developing the online supplement.

Disclosure statement

The authors reported no potential conflicts of interest associated with the work featured in this article.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2023.2275626

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.