LAUSR

Editor – The recent reflection by Professor Jill Thistlethwaite concerning her frequently cited article on interprofessional education (IPE) published in 2012 bodes well for modernising today’s static uniprofessional health and social care curricula. The rise in global awareness of the importance of IPE has been propelled by the World Health Organization (WHO) since the early 1970s and is supported by the WHO’s recent aspirations for preparing students to be ‘collaborative practice-ready practitioners’ and for greater appreciation of global workforce shortages. The reflection piece applauds the ongoing work within North America and pushes the boundaries of our understandings of IPE. Lest we forget, Europe can lay claim to leading the field and to demonstrating sustainable achievements, such as in training wards in Sweden and the theoryinformed, practice-based Leicester model in the UK. However, two of the greatest challenges for progressing IPE are not discussed in this reflection piece. These are, namely, interprofessional leadership and assessment. For IPE to be assured within higher education institutions (HEIs) and in practice requires effective leadership. Leaders seize opportunities, take risks and aspire to change. Interprofessional leadership remains under-researched and atheoretical. There is a plethora of research on leadership, but we do not know if collaborative leaders require different skills and attributes or how to teach and foster such abilities. Within HEIs, those who propel this andragogy must affirm its place within the core curriculum and overcome the challenges and sensitivities of aligning professional curricula while paying particular attention to learning together in practice. Without clinical leaders, interprofessional working will not be realised and many clinical teams will continue to work in outdated, static, profession-specific modes and fail to innovate and modernise service configurations toward integrated care.