Accreditation as a lever for change in the development of the collaborative practitioner in the Australian health system.

Fiona Kent, Lynda Cardiff, Bronwyn Clark, Julie Gustavs, Brian Jolly, Josephine Maundu, Glenys Wilkinson, Sarah Meiklejohn
{"title":"Accreditation as a lever for change in the development of the collaborative practitioner in the Australian health system.","authors":"Fiona Kent, Lynda Cardiff, Bronwyn Clark, Julie Gustavs, Brian Jolly, Josephine Maundu, Glenys Wilkinson, Sarah Meiklejohn","doi":"10.1071/AH24165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Objective Patient expectations in the Australian healthcare system are for coordinated, collaborative practice. There is a need for education institutions, health services, accreditation authorities, and consumers to work together to achieve this goal. As part of a larger body of work, we sought to understand how these stakeholders contribute to the development of collaborative healthcare practice. Method Nineteen focus groups were conducted in 2022 with 84 participants consisting of education providers (n =62), consumers (n =10), representatives from the Health Profession's Education Standing Group (n =8), and health service practitioners (n =4). Framework analysis was initially undertaken to understand facilitators of, and barriers to, collaborative practice and learning. In a secondary analysis, the themes were re-organised according to the Bolman and Deal domains of organisational practice, to make explicit the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic factors deemed useful for re-imaging a process for learning about and incentivising collaborative practice. Results There are multiple factors across healthcare settings that both facilitate and challenge the development of collaborative practice. Co-location of professions and participation in formal interprofessional processes such as team meetings and handovers facilitated learning collaborative practice, although traditional cultures which perpetuate siloed models of healthcare, power differentials between the professions, funding structures, and information sharing limited opportunities. The 'value' of collaborative practice was facilitated through both consistent curriculum messages throughout health professional courses and positive role modelling. Conclusions Education institutions, health service practitioners, accreditation authorities, and consumers can work together to facilitate the development of collaborative practice through attention to policy and processes, curriculum activities, student participation, health service activities and practice, and resource allocation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93891,"journal":{"name":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","volume":" ","pages":"705-710"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian health review : a publication of the Australian Hospital Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1071/AH24165","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective Patient expectations in the Australian healthcare system are for coordinated, collaborative practice. There is a need for education institutions, health services, accreditation authorities, and consumers to work together to achieve this goal. As part of a larger body of work, we sought to understand how these stakeholders contribute to the development of collaborative healthcare practice. Method Nineteen focus groups were conducted in 2022 with 84 participants consisting of education providers (n =62), consumers (n =10), representatives from the Health Profession's Education Standing Group (n =8), and health service practitioners (n =4). Framework analysis was initially undertaken to understand facilitators of, and barriers to, collaborative practice and learning. In a secondary analysis, the themes were re-organised according to the Bolman and Deal domains of organisational practice, to make explicit the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic factors deemed useful for re-imaging a process for learning about and incentivising collaborative practice. Results There are multiple factors across healthcare settings that both facilitate and challenge the development of collaborative practice. Co-location of professions and participation in formal interprofessional processes such as team meetings and handovers facilitated learning collaborative practice, although traditional cultures which perpetuate siloed models of healthcare, power differentials between the professions, funding structures, and information sharing limited opportunities. The 'value' of collaborative practice was facilitated through both consistent curriculum messages throughout health professional courses and positive role modelling. Conclusions Education institutions, health service practitioners, accreditation authorities, and consumers can work together to facilitate the development of collaborative practice through attention to policy and processes, curriculum activities, student participation, health service activities and practice, and resource allocation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认证是澳大利亚卫生系统发展合作医师的变革杠杆。
目标澳大利亚医疗保健系统中的患者期望得到协调合作的医疗服务。教育机构、医疗服务机构、认证机构和消费者需要共同努力来实现这一目标。作为更广泛工作的一部分,我们试图了解这些利益相关者如何促进合作医疗实践的发展。方法:2022 年,我们开展了 19 个焦点小组,共有 84 人参加,其中包括教育提供者(62 人)、消费者(10 人)、卫生专业教育常设小组代表(8 人)和医疗服务从业人员(4 人)。首先进行了框架分析,以了解合作实践和学习的促进因素和障碍。在二次分析中,根据博尔曼和德尔的组织实践领域对主题进行了重新组织,以明确结构、人力资源、政治和象征性因素,这些因素被认为有助于重新认识学习和激励合作实践的过程。各专业共处一地以及参与正式的跨专业流程(如团队会议和交接班)有利于学习协作实践,尽管传统文化延续了各自为政的医疗保健模式、各专业之间的权力差异、资金结构和信息共享限制了机会。结论教育机构、医疗服务从业人员、认证机构和消费者可以共同努力,通过关注政策和流程、课程活动、学生参与、医疗服务活动和实践以及资源分配,促进协作实践的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evaluating the outcomes of Australia's first all-age public hospital Sport and Exercise Medicine Outpatient Clinic: a retrospective cross-sectional study. Trajectories of hospital service use in the last 12months of life by people with chronic kidney disease: a retrospective cohort study. Can I record this? A scoping review of Australian hospital policies governing consultation recording. Patients' reasons for leaving an emergency department without being seen: results from a survey-based cohort study during the COVID-19 pandemic. What's in a name? Why the proposed title change for podiatric surgeons is a step backward.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1