Background: As our global population ages, malnutrition and sarcopenia are increasingly prevalent. Given the multifactorial nature of these conditions, effective management of (risk of) malnutrition and sarcopenia necessitates interprofessional collaboration (IPC). This study aimed to understand primary and social care professionals’ barriers, facilitators, preferences, and needs regarding interprofessional management of (risk of) malnutrition and sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: We conducted a qualitative, Straussian, grounded theory study. We collected data using online semi-structured focus group interviews. A grounded theory data analysis was performed using open, axial, and selective coding, followed by developing a conceptual model. Results: We conducted five online focus groups with 28 professionals from the primary and social care setting. We identified five selective codes: 1) Information exchange between professionals must be smooth, 2) Regular consultation on the tasks, responsibilities, and extent of IPC is needed; 3) Thorough involvement of older adults in IPC is preferred; 4) Coordination of interprofessional care around the older adult is needed; and 5) IPC must move beyond healthcare systems. Our conceptual model illustrates three interconnected dimensions in interprofessional collaboration: professionals, infrastructure, and older adults. Conclusion: Based on insights from professionals, interprofessional collaboration requires synergy between professionals, infra-structure, and older adults. Professionals need both infrastructure elements and the engagement of older adults for successful interprofessional collaboration.
DOCUMENT
Objectives: To understand healthcare professionals' experiences and perceptions of nurses' potential or ideal roles in pharmaceutical care (PC). Design: Qualitative study conducted through semi-structured in-depth interviews. Setting: Between December 2018 and October 2019, interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals of 14 European countries in four healthcare settings: hospitals, community care, mental health and long-term residential care. Participants: In each country, pharmacists, physicians and nurses in each of the four settings were interviewed. Participants were selected on the basis that they were key informants with broad knowledge and experience of PC. Data collection and analysis: All interviews were conducted face to face. Each country conducted an initial thematic analysis. Consensus was reached through a face-to-face discussion of all 14 national leads. Results: 340 interviews were completed. Several tasks were described within four potential nursing responsibilities, that came up as the analysis themes, being: 1) monitoring therapeutic/adverse effects of medicines, 2) monitoring medicines adherence, 3) decision making on medicines, including prescribing 4) providing patient education/information. Nurses' autonomy varied across Europe, from none to limited to a few tasks and emergencies to a broad range of tasks and responsibilities. Intended level of autonomy depended on medicine types and level of education. Some changes are needed before nursing roles can be optimised and implemented in practice. Lack of time, shortage of nurses, absence of legal frameworks and limited education and knowledge are main threats to European nurses actualising their ideal role in PC. Conclusions: European nurses have an active role in PC. Respondents reported positive impacts on care quality and patient outcomes when nurses assumed PC responsibilities. Healthcare professionals expect nurses to report observations and assessments. This key patient information should be shared and addressed by the interprofessional team. The study evidences the need of a unique and consensus-based PC framework across Europe.
LINK
Aim(s): To understand how nurses experience their positioning amidst hospital crises. Background: Nursing leadership literature is predominantly focused on the skills and competencies of nurses and less on the relations in practice with nurses. Nurses are often valued for bedside care but are overlooked in strategic decision-making during crises. Foundational research emphasizes the need for nurses’ equal participation in interprofessional healthcare practices and governance. Methods: We conducted a qualitative interpretive interview and focus group study, amidst the COVID-19 crisis. We interviewed 64 chairs of nurse councils and deepened our understanding of our initial findings in four focus groups with 34 participants. Results: Nurses differ widely on (a) what is important to them in crisis management, (b) how they can contribute to crisis management, and (c) how they value their involvement or lack of it. Furthermore, we uncovered three relational leadership struggles for nurses concerning (1) navigating, (2) positioning, and (3) collaborating, in crisis management structures. Conclusion: The ailing positioning and representation of nurses in crisis management result from their limited participation in strategic decision-making, and the lack of intervention on this by board members, physicians, and managers. Implications for Nursing Management: This study highlights the need for agents such as board members, managers, physicians, and nurses themselves to create clear frameworks and policies that define nurses’ roles in crisis situations, emphasizing the importance of addressing power dynamics and enhancing communication and collaboration in hospital settings. Effective crisis management requires involving nurses from the start, providing regular training, and promoting a more equal approach to teamwork. Understanding relational leadership and its impact during crises can empower nurses and improve overall hospital crisis response.
LINK
