AI as a Catalyst for Interprofessional Learning

Start here

Complete this short set-up before working through the module. Do not enter names, emails, phone numbers, patient details, or identifiable workplace information.

Privacy and safety boundary. This module is educational; it does not provide clinical advice. Any AI use must follow current institutional policy. Public AI tools must never receive identifiable or restricted information.

completion evidence recorded

Your completion pathway

Work through the required evidence. A facilitator-verified certificate is unlocked only after the full record is complete.

Anonymous participant IDProfession or roleGroup ID

What you will do

1–2 NovPre-assessment3–7 NovActivity 1 · compare a human and AI response8–15 NovActivity 2 · case-based teamwork16–22 NovActivity 3A · intervention design23–27 NovActivity 3B · sustainability appraisal28–30 NovReflection, post-assessment and feedback

Learning outcomes

Pre- and post-assessment

Complete the knowledge items before the module and again at the end. Your score is for reflection; the facilitator uses aggregate, de-identified results.

Knowledge check

Confidence check

Rate each statement from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In one sentence, what boundary must AI never cross in your learning or practice?

Activity 1 · Compare before you trust

3–7 November · Individual · 45–60 minutes · Moderators: Siddalingaiah H S and Queen Alice

Task: draft a human response first, then compare it with an AI output or the supplied sample. Your assessed skill is judgement, not access to a tool.

Fictional vignette

Mrs A, an older adult, has had two recent falls. She takes multiple medicines, worries about losing independence, and lives with a daughter who is exhausted by caregiving. A follow-up appointment is delayed because transport is unreliable. What should an interprofessional team notice and do?

Know · Feel · Do

Know: facts, uncertainties, roles and evidence to verifyFeel: values, power, concerns and voices that may be missingDo: shared next steps, ownership, timing and escalation

Safe prompt pattern

Role + task + boundary + verification. Example: “Act as a learning stimulus for an interprofessional student team. Using only this fictional, de-identified scenario, list questions the team should ask, possible role contributions and uncertainty to verify. Do not provide clinical advice or invent sources.”

AI transparency

Tool or supplied sample usedWhat did you accept, revise or reject, and why?

Five-part audit

Final 600–800 word response or submission notes

Criterion	Self-rating 1–4
Safe, bounded and transparent AI use
Interprofessional reasoning and role integration
Critical comparison and verification
Person-centred, equitable next action

Activity 2 · Build one shared plan

8–15 November · Group · 90–120 minutes · Moderators: Faisal Hassan, Anand Bhosale and Purohit Saraswathi

Choose or confirm your fictional case

Case

Team roles

Rotate or assign: chair, equity monitor, evidence checker, AI auditor and rapporteur. Every profession speaks before synthesis begins.

Who held which role?Dissent note: what did the team disagree about, and how was it handled?

Stage-one shared planWhat changed after new information or challenge?

Audit the group’s AI plan or supplied sample

Final shared plan: goals, role contributions, sequence, escalation and evaluation

Criterion	Self-rating 1–4
Person-centred reasoning
Role integration and communication
Critical AI audit, safety and equity
Feasible shared action and monitoring
Clear disclosure and revision trace

Activity 3A · Design an AI-supported IPE intervention

16–22 November · Group project · 120–150 minutes · Moderators: Sidarth and Vrinda J Bhat

Design a small, testable learning intervention—not a technology procurement proposal. The AI role must remain bounded and include a no-AI fallback.

Proposal quality check

Pitch outline or proposal text

Criterion	Self-rating 1–4
Need and stakeholders
IPE mechanism and learning alignment
Responsible, equitable AI design
Feasibility, evaluation and next test

Activity 3B · Sustainability appraisal

23–27 November · Individual · 60–75 minutes · Moderators: Sidarth and Vrinda J Bhat

Educational rating only. This 1–4 rating is informed by the NHS Sustainability Model but is not its official weighted score. Rate using evidence, identify the weakest factor, then name one owned action.

Close the loop

28–30 November · Reflection, post-assessment and feedback · Moderators: Harini Priya and Jasmeen Shaikh

What changed in how you understand roles, teamwork or responsible AI?Which output did you revise because of another perspective?Within 30 days, I will… (setting, first step, evidence and check-in date)

Monthly feedback

Which activity should remain, change or be removed, and why?What support would make your 30-day action feasible?

Completion confirmation. These confirmations are a local checklist. The facilitator must review submitted work and allocate the certificate number before the learner prints the final certificate.

I completed the required pre-assessment. I completed the required post-assessment and feedback. I submitted Activities 1, 2, 3A and 3B with required AI disclosures. A facilitator has checked my submitted completion record.

Certificate generator

Complete the local certificate details after the facilitator’s review. This tool prints a certificate; it does not replace the official completion register.

Participant’s full name for certificate onlyFacilitator-issued certificate numberIssue date

Facilitator verifier name I confirm this completion was verified against the facilitator’s record.

Certificate locked: complete the module evidence and facilitator verification.

FAIMER GROUP 2 · NOVEMBER 2026

Certificate of completion

This certifies that

Participant name

has successfully completed the mentored learning web module Using AI as a catalyst for interprofessional learning, including the required assessments, individual and group learning activities, sustainability appraisal, reflection and feedback.

Module period: 1–30 November 2026

Certificate numberTo be assigned

Verified byTo be assigned

Issue dateTo be assigned

Implementation roles and sources

Faculty in charge: Dr Sushma Prabhat. Record keeping: Sidarth, Anand Bhosale and Siddalingaiah H S. Summary: Queen Alice and Jasmeen Shaikh by 5 December 2026.

Learning framework references: WHO Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice; IPEC Core Competencies Version 3 (2023); UNESCO Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research (2023); NHS Sustainability Model.

Completion record: pre + post assessment, Activities 1, 2, 3A and 3B, reflection, feedback, and AI disclosure where applicable. Submit required work through the approved learning platform.

References and resources

Open the source publications, sustainability guide, learner deck and module materials used to build this learning experience.

WHOFramework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative PracticeFoundational framework for collaborative practice.Open ↗IPECCore Competencies for Interprofessional Collaborative PracticeCompetency reference for team communication and roles.Open ↗UNESCOGuidance for Generative AI in Education and ResearchHuman-centred, safe and transparent AI guidance.Open ↗NHSSustainability Model and GuideEvidence-informed prompts for sustaining change.Open ↗DECKInteractive learner slide deckDownload the 15-slide facilitation-ready PPTX.Download ↓MODULEModule implementation notesTechnical and facilitation notes for this static module.Open ↗

How to use these links: start with WHO and IPEC for the learning framework, use UNESCO for responsible AI boundaries, and use the NHS model during Activity 3B.

Journal articles and methods references

These references are drawn from the Group 2 research-papers pack. Use the links for further reading; verify final metadata and author order against the publisher record before formal publication.

Reading route: begin with Hu and Agustina for the AI–IPE evidence base, then use Maphalala, Vinci and Guo for learning, assessment and equity perspectives. Use Tricco, JBI, White, Page and O’Cathain for the research-methods foundation.