Table 2 Vik’s typology and examples of how some of these approaches were evident in the focus group data [26]

Relational collaboration

Group B

Student 13 (AGN): It is a huge advantage when we sit in the same room. When you spontaneously get a thought, you can bounce your idea off each other and ask the one that probably knows the most. You can’t do that reading documents or when you are at home and working with the document [this group worked together on a document online], where you just put in your own notes. It is useful to be in the same place.

Student 17 (CN): You get to “challenge your view”, both because it broadens your perspective, but also because you get another point of view.

Operational closed collaboration

Group D

Student 5 (M): Well, we medical students went together (before meeting the patient), and also the pharmacy student, and looked at it alone. The dentistry students looked at what they planned to ask about. We grouped [uniprofessionally] in a way. That’s almost what you must do (so as to) know what to ask for from your own field of expertise.

Student 4 (M): And then we worked by ourselves to look through the information we got from the anamnesis. That was separate, and we have not coordinated any information. So, the report meeting was actually the first time we got to listen to findings and solutions from each other.

Student 5 (M): It would have taken a long time to arrange a meeting for all of us […].

Coordinated delegation

Group B started having physical meetings together and thereafter continued working on a document online. See quotation above. The group mainly favoured working relational, but had elements of coordinated delegation.

Split task distribution

Group D

Student 4 (M): I feel ambivalent. The learning outcome would be to know that I feel secure enough to ask the dentists about things. But the dentists are not [normally] present at the nursing home. So, the situation is not realistic. They sit in their offices, and I have got a verification that they are not present in the nursing homes, which is a problem.

Researcher: You think this training was a bit unrealistic?

Student 4 (M): Yes, a bit unrealistic! Since neither the dentists nor the pharmacists usually are in the nursing homes, we somewhat introduce these experts [in the team]. And now I can see the benefits of obtaining expertise when examining a patient. It is important with an interprofessional approach, but I am not sure of how I can use this further, because I guess that they will not be there in that way [in the real world].