Utilizing panel discussions to facilitate interprofessional learning: Lessons from the rural and underserved service track

Abstract Introduction Panel discussions are widely used in health professions education; however, little is known regarding best practices, learning outcomes, and their role in interprofessional education (IPE). The Rural and Underserved Service Track (TRUST) is a two‐year co‐curricular IPE track that regularly incorporates panel discussions into learning retreats. Objectives This study aimed to describe student perceptions of the impact of panel discussions on IPE outcomes, determine factors of panel discussions which facilitate IPE, and analyze student learning outcomes in the setting of IPE. Methods A qualitative descriptive study of student quotes ( n = 4339) from 18 post‐TRUST retreat assessments was conducted. A four‐phased coding scheme was used to address each objective: (1) open‐ended responses to the post‐retreat assessments were deductively and retrospectively sorted, with panel‐related quotes binned for analysis, (2) panel‐related quotes were mapped to the 2023 Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) Competencies, (3) panel‐related quotes were categorized to panel structure or panel outcomes, and (4) sub‐themes for panel structure and panel outcomes were inductively identified using the techniques of thematic analysis. Multiple coders, multiple coding phases, and frequent research team meetings were used to increase rigor. Results Panel discussions were ascribed to 834 (19.2%) quotes. At least one IPEC Competency was ascribed to 192 (23.0%) quotes. All competencies were represented in the analysis, with Values and Ethics (12.7%) and Roles and Responsibilities (12.0%) observed most often. Themes of panel structure and panel outcomes were ascribed to 299 (35.9%) and 259 (31.1%) quotes respectively, with six subthemes ascertained within each. Conclusion This analysis of TRUST post‐retreat assessments indicates that panel discussions can be utilized to facilitate the achievement of IPE competencies, although confirmation of study findings with prospective analyses is required. Sub‐themes identified strategies for implementing effective panel discussions and promoting learning outcomes.