{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029023746701846966, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014072119613016711, 'mean_word_length': 6.437908496732026, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The moving target: outcomes of interprofessional education

With the explosion of enthusiasm for interprofessional education as a means to increase collaborative practice and improve important healthcare outcomes, many institutions are devoting new resources to interprofessional educational programs. Although most interprofessional education programs described in the literature are discrete curricular events with relatively short assessment periods (Abu-Rish et al., 2012; Reeves, Perrier, Goldman, Freeth, & Zwarenstein, 2013), a few institutions have outlined larger institutional frameworks for their interprofessional education programs (Blue, Mitcham, Smith, Raymond, & Greenberg, 2010). In order to reach the overarching goal of interprofessional education that improves the health of patients, longitudinal curricula should include sequenced educational experiences that build toward proficiency in practice (Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation, 2013). As leaders of large interprofessional education programs at our respective institutions, we describe the challenges facing this goal and some possible approaches to being successful.