Context: Respiratory care (RC) is a health-care discipline that specializes in providing treatment for patients with acute and chronic cardiopulmonary abnormalities. The actual practice of respiratory care has changed dramatically since its inception. Today, RCs possess a strong skill base and an expansive depth of knowledge, which enables them to provide safe, team-based, evidence-based effective care for patients. The Commission on Accreditation for Respiratory Care (CoARC) has recently required that RC programs nationwide include interprofessional education (IPE) as an accreditation standard to encourage the goal of promoting interprofessional practice (IPP).

Objective: To explore perceptions of RC students, faculty, and practicing professionals regarding IPE and its ability to support IPP. Additionally, to identify factors that affect perceptions of knowledge, skills, and abilities related to IPE and IPP among RC students, faculty, and practicing professionals.

Design: A concurrent mixed method embedded design.

Setting: Online survey instrument. Participants: 421 RC students and RC professionals or therapists received an email invitation to participate in the study. The final sample population size based on completed surveys was (N= 208).

Interventions: Participants completed the Interprofessional Education Perceptions Survey ([IEPS] McFadyen et al., 2007), consisting of five quantitative or categorical questions and five open-ended questions.

Results: Mean score findings on the IEPS showed a high level of positive perception toward IPE competency among the RC students (M= 5.40, SD=. 51) as compared with RC professionals (M= 4.93, SD=. 89). An independent sample t test revealed a significant difference between RC students and RC professionals (t (206)= 3.07, p=. 002<. 05, r=. 98). There was a significant main effect of professional status on the IEPS overall score regardless of the IPE exposure, F (2,202)= 3.15, p<. 05. There was no significant difference in the average score on the competency and autonomy, perceived need for cooperation, or perception of actual cooperation. Qualitatively, it was revealed that simulation was the most useful IPE experience for promoting IPP. Additional factors such as time, attitude, experiences, cooperation, and cost were believed to affect the infusion of IPE into the academic environment.

Conclusion: In this study, regardless of the status of RC students’ and professionals’ exposure to IPE during their professional education, RC students, faculty, and professionals perceived IPE as positively supporting IPP. Qualitatively, for those directly exposed to IPE, simulation was identified as the most useful IPE experience for promoting IPP.