Changes of interleukin-6 after wheelchair basketball games in persons with spinal cord injury

Management (2.35 (± 0.20)) in Patient-Centred Approach (1.54 (± 0.25)) and Team Functioning (1.59 (± 0.08)). Conclusion(s): The quantitative and qualitative data reveal some interesting trends in students’ perceptions of IPE competencies in different simulation scenarios. Consistently across all workshops and data sets, communication was a competency that students felt they were strong in before participation in the interprofessional workshop. This is contrary to sources previously cited that demonstrate that one of the main benefits of simulation in IPE is to improve communication. It was also evident from the qualitative data that students were nervous/anxious before the scenario, but many felt that they had gained skills thatwould be useful inworking with patients with respiratory conditions. Another noteworthy point was for most of the participants, this was their first exposure to an IPE activity, although many were near the end of their educational program. Implications: Although physiotherapists work in interprofessional teams daily, it is a challenge to coordinate IPE opportunities for students but this study found that it was a valuable activity. Findings indicate that regardless of method used, whether more high tech (patient simulation) or low tech (standardized patients), students found the simulation experience beneficial and appreciated the opportunity to work with and better understand the roles of collaborating health care professionals.