Journal of Interprofessional Care最新文献

Although interprofessional collaboration is emphasized as important in schools, little is known about how it should be organized. We analyzed the effects of an organizational model of interprofessional collaboration, the LOG model. The model aims to improve interprofessional collaboration by identifying and improving various meeting places for collaboration, involving municipal school leaders, principals, staff, and interprofessional collaborators, and by increasing feedback from meeting places in and around schools. In a cluster-randomized design including 35 Norwegian primary schools, 19 schools were randomized to the experimental group and implemented the LOG model, and 16 were randomized to a control group. A total of 142 interprofessional collaborators (e.g., school nurses, social workers, and principals) received a questionnaire prior to randomization, with one- and two-year follow-up. Using a validated scale to measure interprofessional team collaboration, we evaluated the effects of the model on collaborators' perceptions in four dimensions: (a) Reflection on process, (b) Professional flexibility, (c) Newly created professional activities, and (d) Role interdependence. During the first, but not the second year of follow-up, the results demonstrated positive and statistically significant effects of the LOG model on the dimensions Reflection on process (p< .001) and Newly created professional activities (p= .016). Our findings demonstrate the potential of interventions addressing interprofessional collaboration at the organizational level.

Competent professionals are essential when delivering patient-centered and individual palliative care to patients and their families. However, interprofessional competencies for health and social care professionals in specialized palliative care have not been defined. The purpose of this study was to describe the competencies required for good interprofessional teamwork in specialized palliative care from the perspective of health and social care professionals. A qualitative descriptive study design was chosen to undertake the face-to-face individual and focus-group interviews. Fifty participants working in specialized palliative care units were recruited through a purposive sampling technique. The data were analyzed using abductive content analysis. The required interprofessional competencies in specialized palliative care were identified as values and ethics for interprofessional practice, roles and responsibilities, interprofessional communication, and teams and teamwork. Professionals should be interprofessionally competent to meet patients' care needs holistically and individually. Meeting patients and relatives with respect is vital, but respectful behavior and communication among professionals are also highlighted in palliative care. Certain professional qualities, such as patience, humility, and flexibility, were emphasized in interprofessional palliative care. It is important to note that the nature of palliative care affects even experienced professionals, who should be able to face death as a team in everyday work.

Interprofessional co-treatment occurs when practitioners from different professions engage in collaborative practice during the same session with the same patient or client. While interprofessional co-treatment is common practice in many settings, there are no known studies that have synthesized the available literature across professions on this interprofessional intervention. A scoping review was conducted to explore the nature and volume of the literature on interprofessional co-treatment involving six allied health professions. A search strategy was implemented, and articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Thirty-three articles were included in the study. The professions commonly represented in co-treatment studies were as follows: occupational therapy, physical therapy, speech-language pathology, music therapy, and classroom teaching. Studies discussed co-treatment in direct patient or client care, as a student learning experience, or in the exploration of professional practice issues. Studies discussed co-treatment in a range of clinical contexts. The most common co-treatment collaborations were between occupational therapy and physical therapy; physical therapy and speech-language pathology; speech-language pathology and music therapy; and speech-language pathology and classroom teaching. Co-treatment occurs with a range of professions in both health and non-health contexts, which may be reflected in student IPE experiences. Given the paucity of empirical studies on co-treatment, more work is required by practitioners and researchers to advance the evidence base.

In caring for clients with combined problems, various professionals are encouraged to work together in new ways. Collaboration is often fluid, and professionals are expected to seek other professionals and organizations to solve complex problems. This type of collaboration is not institutionalized; it may therefore be hard to develop routines compared to fixed teams. Knowledge about how frontline professionals work together in non-institutionalized forms of fluid collaboration is lacking. This article addresses this gap by studying how professionals from various disciplines work together in fluid collaborative contexts when caring for clients with combined problems. To this end, this empirical research has an iterative design and uses ethnographic fieldwork in studying these hard-to-grasp contexts. In the analysis, we explore whether and how interprofessional collaboration manifests in fluid teams in general practice, mental healthcare and social welfare a Dutch city and how team fluidity plays a role.

We aimed to assess perceptions about interprofessional collaboration (IPC) of healthcare professionals working in an acute medical unit (AMU) in an internal medicine department in the United Arab Emirates. The AMU provides care during the initial 24 to 72 hours of admission and emphasizes interprofessional collaboration. Using the Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale II, the study measured partnership, cooperation, and coordination among team members. Between November 5, 2022, and January 5, 2023, 81 participants completed the survey, including physicians (n = 45; 55.5%), nurses (n = 18; 22.2%), and clinical and non-clinical allied health professionals (n = 18; 22.2%). On a Likert-type scale of one to five, most respondents perceived partnership, cooperation, and team coordination as good collaboration on the AMU, with mean scores of 4.29, 4.16, and 4.15, respectively. There was no significant difference between physicians' (4.18) and nurses' (4.45) perspectives of IPC on the AMU (p = .10), but physicians were less likely to notice collaborative practice changes compared to other professionals. Introducing IPC early in medical education might enhance future collaborative practice. This study sheds light on IPC in non-Western contexts and provides insights into how collaboration is perceived and practiced in diverse healthcare settings.

Healthcare clinical microsystems are small, goal-oriented groups of healthcare professionals that work together on a regular basis to provide care to discrete patient populations. They often include team-based frameworks such as bedside interprofessional rounds, geographic colocation of healthcare team members, interprofessional staff leadership, and unit-level data sharing. In inpatient settings, microsystems improve interprofessional communication and collaboration. In this qualitative study, we examined physician experiences of clinical microsystems and the mechanisms underpinning interprofessional communication in this environment. We interviewed 51 resident and hospitalist physicians. Thematic analysis of physician experiences revealed three key themes: (a) Clinical microsystem effect on workflow, (b) Open forum and work relationships, and (c) Face-to-face vs technology-based communication. Physicians described strong interprofessional relationships based on frequent face-to-face communication. Familiarity with healthcare team members, often resulting from being co-located to the same units, created a comfortable work environment, advanced patient care, and accelerated workflow. Physicians preferred in-person communication with interprofessional colleagues over technology-based communicationand described how in-person interactions enriched subsequent technology-led interactions. As the use of technology-based communication grows in inpatient settings, decreasing face-to-face interactions and facilitating dispersed care, understanding and implementing optimal conditions for effective interprofessional communication is essential.

In the first of three articles, we scanned global and national sources to help understand the concept and scope of integrated care. New policy directives seek closer working relationships between health and social care systems and practitioners to tackle modern challenges relating to the ageing population, poverty, disadvantage, and mental health. We identified that the practitioner workforce has not been fully considered or prepared for large shifts in working practices, often bringing new practitioners' roles to address local needs in newly managed interprofessional working systems for integrated care. In this second article, we consider the major themes identified by our review of integrated care policy to explore their implications for interprofessional learning, drawing on developmental pathways for interprofessional education from organic to strategic and systemic responses, to ask in what ways we will need to prepare our learners for these new ways of delivering integrated care.

Up to 175 conditions influencing interprofessional practices have been identified. Still, little is known about to what extent these conditions interact, influence communication, and vary across professional groups and settings. We explored these knowledge gaps by examining communication among staff in home care and home nursing units in two Danish municipalities, Herning and Holstebro. Conditions were categorized into two types (programme and context) and two levels (professional and organizational). Structural Equation Modeling was used with a sample of 395 staff and 21 managers to analyze the condition categories' interactions, influences on communication, and variations by unit type and municipality. Context conditions strongly influenced programme conditions on the professional and organizational levels. Organizational-level context conditions had no significant influence, organizational-level programme conditions had a weak influence, and professional-level programme and context conditions had moderate influences on communication. Lastly, professional-level programme conditions had the biggest influence on communication for staff in home care units and in Holstebro. In contrast, professional-level context conditions had the biggest influence on communication for staff in home nursing units and in Herning. These findings offer unique insights into conditions' interactions, influences, and variances, contributing to our understanding of what makes communication work and for whom.

Researchers have highlighted gaps in the work readiness (WR) of allied health (AH) graduates and the capabilities required to successfully work in an interprofessional collaborative practice healthcare environment. In the studies conducted, the focus has generally been on one AH discipline or on one participant group across disciplines, such as new graduates. We explored WR capability of new AH graduates across three participant groups (managers, supervisors, and graduates) and across several AH disciplines in the health sector. Focus groups using Critical Incident Technique (CIT) were conducted with 47 participants (14 new graduates, 13 supervisors, and 20 managers) from four public health organisations across Eastern Australia. CIT identified examples where new AH graduates had/did not have necessary WR capabilities to manage situations in the collaborative practice environment. Using thematic analysis, we found four main themes related to WR expectations of AH graduates (work skills and knowledge, working with others, personal attributes, and organisational knowledge), with several sub-themes. Some aspects of identified themes/sub-themes were unique to the AH interprofessional work context. Understanding of AH graduates' WR from multiple perspectives could support development of programs to enable graduate success in interprofessional working environments.

Research on interprofessional identity using the Extended Professional Identity Theory (EPIT) has shown promising results in measuring this identity, predicting interprofessional collaboration, and improving team outcomes. However, EPIT-based interprofessional identity has not been studied in Türkiye due to the absence of a Turkish version of the Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS). We aimed to develop and validate a Turkish EPIS, the EPIS-TR, and explore interprofessional identities across eight different professions. A cross-cultural adaptation of EPIS was made by linguistic validation, followed by analysis of psychometric properties using a sample of students from four Turkish universities and eight professions/programs (n = 405). Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability analyses were performed. Differences between professions were explored with ANOVA and a post hoc test. Three out of seven goodness-of-fit indices showed acceptable fit (x²/df = .004; RMSEA = .07; GFI = .94), and others showed excellent fit (SRMR = .04; AGFI = .91; CFI = .97; NNFI = .96). The internal consistency of the EPIS-TR is .93. The EPIS-TR scale has strong psychometric properties. The construct validity of the EPIS-TR was similar to that of the original version. The interprofessional identity scores of the different professions were mostly similar. Based on these findings, the EPIS-TR is well suited for measuring interprofessional identity.