Longitudinal interprofessional education (IPE) is vital for developing collaborative practice-ready health professionals, yet its implementation and impact remain underexplored. This scoping review maps the current evidence on longitudinal IPE, examining implementation models, evaluated outcomes, and key facilitators and barriers. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, a systematic search of five databases from 2016 to March 2024 was conducted. Data from 45 included studies were thematically analyzed. Findings reveal that most longitudinal IPE programs are short-term and partially integrated, constrained primarily by meso-level administrative barriers such as scheduling conflicts and time constraints, rather than being truly longitudinal. Based on the interprofessional socialization framework, a significant “measurement gap” exists; evaluations predominantly focus on self-assessed interprofessional competencies and readiness for interprofessional learning, while largely overlooking interprofessional identity development and behavioral readiness for collaborative practice. Furthermore, an “interprofessional socialization paradox” suggests that longitudinal IPE must be intentionally designed to provide high-quality, repeated, and meaningful interprofessional experiences across the entire curriculum. This review also advocates the use of spiral curriculum equipped with authenticity of the learning context, particularly clinical exposure, to support dual identity development. The current longitudinal IPE landscape is fragmented, revealing a chasm between pedagogical goals and implementation reality. Progress requires a deliberate shift towards evidence-based models like spiral curricula grounded in authentic clinical contexts, supported by robust faculty development, the alignment of macro-level accreditation standards, and a research agenda focused on dual identity development and higher-level behavioral outcomes.

This scoping review describes the responsibilities of facilitators, especially clinical teachers, in facilitating clinical reasoning and factors affecting the implementation of the strategies. This review was conducted by collecting and identifying original data in peer-reviewed full English journals published between 2004 and 2021. It followed Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The process included formulating review questions, developing a comprehensive search strategy, selecting relevant studies, extracting data, and presenting findings. Initial searches were conducted on PubMed, EBSCO, Scopus, and EMBASE, with a research librarian ensuring the efficiency and comprehensiveness of the search. The search based on the PCC approach (population, concept, context approach) encompassed “clinical reasoning,” “facilitation,” and “clinical teachers.” Out of the initial 2,004 records retrieved from the four databases, a thorough screening process led to the 30 studies included in the review, revealing three primary themes and multiple strategies related to clinical reasoning facilitation in clinical settings. These themes involved the responsibilities of clinical teachers, strategies utilized, and factors influencing clinical reasoning learning in clinical settings. In the clinical settings, clinical teachers have crucial responsibilities in facilitating clinical reasoning learning, including creating a safe environment, demonstrating effective practices, using appropriate strategies, and assessing students’ abilities. While this review has explored the responsibilities of clinical teachers, specific strategies that enhance clinical reasoning abilities need further investigation. Additionally, the impacts of identified factors on strengthening clinical reasoning abilities require more analysis.