Interprofessional Student Attitudes on Role Identification Badges
Interprofessional Student Poster Description:
Introduction:
Patients interact with a variety of healthcare professionals and often interact with learners across the entire spectrum of training. While students may contribute significantly to patient care activities, their role is often unclear and it may be difficult for both patients and staff to identify who is a learner. Other works have found that role identification badges have significantly reduced inequities in role identification and have found that these badges improve communication in patient care. At the University of Wisconsin- Madison (UW), role ID badges are implemented differently across health professions; some programs require their use and provide them to students, while others do not. Here, we investigate the perspective of students across multiple healthcare professions at our institution on role identification badges in their respective training programs.
Methods:
Students from Nursing (n=65), Medicine (n=139), Physical Therapy (n=15), Occupational Therapy (n=6), Physician Assistant (n=19) and pharmacy (n=60) programs were sent a survey using Qualtrics XM software. Question items were analyzed using a 5-point Likert scale (1= not useful at all and 5= extremely useful) for quantitative variables or were categorized using open coding for qualitative portions. Statistical analysis was performed using Qualtrics XM software.
Results:
304 students participated in this survey, 65% of which were in a clinical phase of training. 80.4% and 82.37% of student respondents found ID badges to be at least “moderately useful” in the inpatient and outpatient setting, respectively. 66% and 63.5% believe that student role ID badges improve staff and patient understanding of their role, respectively. Nursing students were statistically more likely to report being the subject of discrimination that they attributed to their role ID badge than any other student group (p= 0.016), while there was no statistical difference in reported discrimination by gender identity, first generation student, or Pell grant eligibility.
Conclusion and Implications:
This study demonstrates that role ID badges are generally perceived favorably by students. A notable proportion of students, however, attribute at least one negative experience to the use of a role ID badge in the clinical setting. These results demonstrate that program leadership that chooses to institute a role ID badge requirement must also be aware of the potential negative effects on students. From a student perspective, these results may be interpreted as a need to provide additional support to fellow students of different professions in their roles as learners and members of the interprofessional team.
