Journal of Interprofessional Care最新文献

We aimed to develop a culturally appropriate psychometrically robust measure for assessing interprofessional socialization for health practitioners and students in Indonesia. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) were used as guidelines. Our study was organized in three phases (a) translation, (b) cross-cultural validation by evaluating the content validity and internal structure of the translated instrument (i.e. structural validity, internal consistency reliability, and measurement invariances), and (c) hypotheses testing for construct validity. A total of 266 health practitioners and 206 students from various professional backgrounds participated. The Indonesian ISVS-19 was confirmed unidimensional. Content validity evaluation confirmed the inclusion of relevant, understandable items and was comprehensive. Factor analysis supported removal of two items. Configural, metric, and scalar tests confirmed the invariance of the 1-Factor 19-Items model in practitioner and student cohorts. Age was a differentiating factor in both cohorts; length of work was only significant for practitioners, and educational background was significant for students (80% of assumptions were accepted, fulfilling COSMIN requirement for construct validity). The Indonesian ISVS-19 has good psychometric properties regarding content validity, internal structure, and construct validity and, therefore, is a psychometrically robust measure for assessing interprofessional socialization for health practitioners and students in Indonesia.

As interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in primary care receives increasing attention, the role of electronic medical and health record (EMR/EHR) systems in supporting IPC is important to consider. A scoping review was conducted to synthesize the current literature on the barriers and facilitators of EMR/EHRs to interprofessional primary care. Four online databases (OVID Medline, EBSCO CINAHL, OVID EMBASE, and OVID PsycINFO) were searched without date restrictions. Twelve studies were included in the review. Of six facilitator and barrier themes identified, the key facilitator was teamwork support and a significant barrier was data management. Other important barriers included usability related mainly to interoperability, and practice support primarily in terms of patient care. Additional themes were organization attributes and user features. Although EMR/EHR systems facilitated teamwork support, there is potential for team features to be strengthened further. Persistent barriers may be partly addressed by advances in software design, particularly if interprofessional perspectives are included. Organizations and teams might also consider strategies for working with existing EMR/EHR systems, for instance by developing guidelines for interprofessional use. Further research concerning the use of electronic records in interprofessional contexts is needed to support IPC in primary care.

We describe the establishment and operation of a student-led interprofessional chronic disease prevention and management clinic in regional Australia. Our aim was twofold. First, to report on service delivery, student placement, and health outcome data; and second, to discuss key lessons learned during the first 3½ years of clinic operations. Between July 2019 and December 2022, 146 (79.3%) clinic participants completed the 4-month program and participated in an average of 48.4 occasions of service (total 7,060). The clinic supported 1,060 clinical placement weeks across 147 health students. There was a significant improvement across health measures reported at program completion, with the largest changes observed for the 6-min walk test and preference-adjusted quality of life. Nine key challenges and lessons were identified that affected operations and service delivery, which should be of interest to healthcare teams considering establishing an interprofessional student-led clinic.

The advanced access (AA) model is among the most recommended innovations for improving timely access in primary health care (PHC). Originally developed for physicians, it is now relevant to evaluate the model's implementation in more interprofessional practices. We compared AA implementation among family physicians, nurse practitioners, and nurses. A cross-sectional online open survey was completed by 514 PHC providers working in 35 university-affiliated clinics. Family physicians delegated tasks to other professionals in the team more often than nurse practitioners (p = .001) and nurses (p < .001). They also left a smaller proportion of their schedules open for urgent patient needs than did nurse practitioners (p = .015) and nurses (p < .001). Nurses created more alternatives to in-person visits than family physicians (p < .001) and coordinated health and social services more than family physicians (p = .003). During periods of absence, physicians referred patients to walk-in services for urgent needs significantly more often than nurses (p = .003), whereas nurses planned replacements between colleagues more often than physicians (p <.001). The variations among provider categories indicate that a one-size-fits-all implementation of AA principles is not recommended.

Interprofessional care coordination within evidence-based prevention programs like Nurse-Family Partnership® (NFP) is necessary to meet family needs and maximize program impact. This study aimed to describe the coordination of families' care in the NFP home visiting context. We used an adapted grounded theory approach and purposively sampled seven NFP sites. We conducted telephone interviews with 95 participants: 51 NFP staff (54%), 39 healthcare providers (41%), and 5 social service providers (5%). All interviews were recorded, transcribed, validated, and analyzed in NVivo11. Many community providers in all sites described their knowledge of the characteristics of the NFP intervention, including the strength of its evidence to achieve outcomes. Care coordination was dynamic and changed over time based on client needs and staff willingness to work together. Effective care coordination in the NFP context from the provider perspective is driven by shared knowledge, integrated systems, mission alignment, and individual champions who value the program.

Interprofessional teamwork is of high importance during stressful situations such as CPR. Stress can potentially influence team performance. This study explores the perception of stress and its stressors during performance under pressure, to be able to further adjust or develop training. Healthcare professionals, who are part of the resuscitation team in a large Dutch university medical center, discussed their experiences in homogeneous focus groups. Nine focus groups and one individual interview were conducted and analyzed thematically, in order to deepen our understanding of their experiences. Thematic analysis resulted in two scenarios, routine and stress and an analysis of accompanying team processes. Routine refers to a setting perceived as straightforward. Stress develops in the presence of a combination of stressors such as a lack of clarity in roles and a lack of knowledge on fellow team members. Participants reported that stress affects the team, specifically through an altering of communication, a decrease in situational awareness, and formation of subgroups. This may lead to a further increase in stress, and potentially result in a vicious cycle. Team processes in a stressful situation like CPR can be disrupted by different stressors, and might affect the team and their performance. Improved knowledge about the stressors and their effects might be used to design a training environment representative for the performance setting healthcare professionals work in. Further research on the impact of representative training with team-level stressors and the development of a "team brain" might be worthwhile.

Interprofessional education facilitates collaborative practice, which promotes high-quality patient care and patient safety. Interprofessional education (IPE) experiences within clinical settings provide an opportunity for the development of interprofessional collaborative practice competence. The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature evaluating interprofessional education for health professional students within clinical settings and summarize the behavioral outcomes. Databases searched were PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Taylor & Francis Online, ERIC and PsycINFO. Full-text articles were independently screened by two reviewers and included if agreed. Outcomes were analyzed using Kirkpatrick's model modified for IPE. Studies with behavioral change outcomes were analyzed and synthesized using narrative methods. Included studies provided evidence that IPE experiences in clinical settings can enable students to develop and integrate interprofessional collaborative practice competencies, across diverse types of settings. Key tasks enabling students to achieve these learning outcomes included synchronous patient consultations, collaborative development of integrative health-care plans outside of patient consultations, and participation in socialization with health-care teams. There were limitations in the methodological design of the included studies, with limited use of comparator groups and validated tools, high usage of self-report data and serious risk of bias identified across all quantitative included studies. In conclusion, high-quality research designed to measure the construct of behavioral change is lacking. Such research could further investigate the key tasks in IPE experiences in clinical settings that are necessary for students to develop the range of required collaborative practice competencies and integrate these. This could provide clarification regarding if and how this could be achieved across different types of clinical placements.

The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio launched an annual university-wide seed grant program in 2019 to foster innovation in interprofessional education (IPE) and increase IPE opportunities for learners. Program objectives included leveraging hypothesis-driven research to identify sustainable IPE activities for integration into educational programs (i.e. mandated for at least one cohort of learners), increasing scholarly dissemination of IPE efforts, and using pilot data to secure extramural funding. Over the first four funding cycles (2019-2022), US$100,509.00 was awarded to support 22 IPE projects (10 curricular, 12 co-curricular) involving 80 faculty and staff collaborators and over 2,100 student participants. To date, funded projects have yielded nine sustained IPE activities (four of which have been integrated), produced 24 scholarly presentations and three peer-reviewed publications, and contributed to the success of one extramural grant. Barriers experienced are discussed in this report alongside lessons learned and unexpected positive outcomes, including identification of future IPE champions.

Interprofessional collaboration among speech-language pathology, physical therapy, and occupational therapy is considered to promote best practice in rehabilitation as it can enhance efficiency, patient outcomes, and clinician and patient satisfaction. Although clinician experiences with interprofessional collaboration have been studied in each of the rehabilitation professions separately, limited research has been conducted on the shared attitudes or experiences across speech-language pathology, physical therapy, and occupational therapy. The purpose of this study was to understand speech-language pathologist, physical therapist, and occupational therapist experiences of interprofessional collaborations. We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional online survey study. The survey included Likert-scale questions and open-ended questions that probed clinicians' general experiences with interprofessional practice and views and beliefs regarding barriers and facilitators to interprofessional collaboration. Responses from 213 clinician respondents were analyzed using descriptive quantitative methods and a qualitative content analysis. The results revealed overlap in attitudes and experiences across speech-language pathology, physical therapy, and occupational therapy about barriers and benefits to interprofessional collaboration. Perceived respect differed among the professions, with speech-language pathologists more frequently reporting that their role is often misunderstood or undervalued by other rehabilitation professionals. These results may guide future research focused upon the predictors of successful interprofessional collaborations and interactions.

An integrated medication management (IMM) model was implemented in a medical center ward to improve the delivery of clinical pharmaceutical services (CPSs). This model incorporated a ward-based clinical pharmacist who performed medication reconciliation and medication reviews. It was perceived to promote interprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and non-pharmacist healthcare professionals (NPHPs, including attending physicians, nurse practitioners, and registered nurses). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of the IMM on NPHPs' intentions to collaborate with pharmacists and understand the mechanism of the impact of the IMM on interprofessional collaboration. A sequential explanatory mixed methods design was employed in the study. Initially, a questionnaire was administered to assess the effects of the IMM on NPHPs' intentions to collaborate with pharmacists. The NPHPs' experiences with the IMM were then documented using semi-structured interviews with inductive thematic analysis. Fifty-eight NPHPs completed the questionnaire, and NPHPs from the intervention ward reported a higher intention to discuss patient-related medication issues with pharmacists, indicating collaboration. Eleven NPHPs were interviewed, and they stated having better working relationships with pharmacists, experiencing more effective CPSs, and noting improved communication with pharmacists. The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings demonstrates that the critical mechanism of the IMM in promoting collaborative relationships is to integrate pharmacists into medical practice, which familiarizes NPHPs with pharmacists' roles, improves communication, and enables pharmacists to identify NPHPs' needs. To summarize, allowing ward-based pharmacists to engage in medical teams on a regular basis appears vital for improving interprofessional teamwork. Furthermore, stakeholders aiming to promote CPS in their institutions should consider the needs and communication channels among NPHPs.