The significance of effective interprofessional teamwork to improve the quality of care has been widely recognised. Effective interprofessional teamwork calls on good collaboration between professionals and patients, coordination between professionals, and the development of teamwork over time. Effective development of teams also requires support from the wider organisational context. In a Dutch village, healthcare professionals work closely together, and mutual consultations as well as interprofessional meetings take place on a regular basis. The network was created as a precondition for sustainable interprofessional teamwork in elderly care. However, several external barriers were experienced regarding the supportive structure and cooperative attitude of the healthcare insurer and municipality. The aim of the article is to examine these experience-based issues regarding internal organisation, perspective, and definition of effective teamwork. Complicating factors refer to finding the right key figures, and the different perspectives on team development and team effectiveness. Our conclusion is that the organisation of healthcare insurance companies needs to implement fundamental changes to facilitate an interprofessional care approach. Furthermore, municipalities should work on their vision of the needs and benefits of a fruitful collaboration with interprofessional healthcare teams. The challenge for healthcare teams is to learn to speak the language of external partners. To support the development of interprofessional teams, external parties need to recognise and trust in a shared aim to provide quality of care in an efficient and effective way.
DOCUMENT
Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions demanding primary care services is increasing. To deal with the complex health care demands of these people, professionals from different disciplines collaborate. This study aims to explore influential factors regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development in primary care. Methods: A qualitative study, including four semi-structured focus group interviews (n = 4). In total, a heterogeneous group of experts (n = 16) and health care professionals (n = 15) participated. Participants discussed viewpoints, barriers, and facilitators regarding interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development. The data were analysed by means of inductive content analysis. Results: The findings show a variety of factors influencing the interprofessional collaboration in developing a care plan. Factors can be divided into 5 key categories: (1) patient-related factors: active role, self-management, goals and wishes, membership of the team; (2) professional-related factors: individual competences, domain thinking, motivation; (3) interpersonal factors: language differences, knowing each other, trust and respect, and motivation; (4) organisational factors: structure, composition, time, shared vision, leadership and administrative support; and (5) external factors: education, culture, hierarchy, domain thinking, law and regulations, finance, technology and ICT. Conclusions: Improving interprofessional collaboration regarding care plan development calls for an integral approach including patient- and professional related factors, interpersonal, organisational, and external factors. Further, the leader of the team seems to play a key role in watching the patient perspective, organising and coordinating interprofessional collaborations, and guiding the team through developments. The results of this study can be used as input for developing tools and interventions targeted at executing and improving interprofessional collaboration related to care plan development.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient involvement in interprofessional education (IPE) is a new approach in fostering person-centeredness and collaborative competencies in undergraduate students. We developed the Patient As a Person (PAP-)module to facilitate students in learning from experts by experience (EBEs) living with chronic conditions, in an interprofessional setting. This study aimed to explore the experiences of undergraduate students, EBEs and facilitators with the PAP-module and formulate recommendations on the design and organization of patient involvement in IPE. Methods: We collected data from students, EBEs and facilitators, through eight semi-structured focus group interviews and two individual interviews (N = 51). The interviews took place at Maastricht University, Zuyd University of Applied Sciences and Regional Training Center Leeuwenborgh. Conventional content analysis revealed key themes. Results: Students reported that learning from EBEs in an interprofessional setting yielded a more comprehensive approach and made them empathize with EBEs. Facilitators found it challenging to address multiple demands from students from different backgrounds and diverse EBEs. EBEs were motivated to improve the personcentredness of health care and welcomed a renewed sense of purpose. Conclusions: This study yielded six recommendations: (a) students from various disciplines visit an EBE to foster a comprehensive approach, (b) groups of at least two students visit EBEs, (c) students may need aftercare for which facilitators should be receptive, (d) EBEs need clear instruction on their roles, (e) multiple EBEs in one session create diversity in perspectives and (f) training programmes and peer-to-peer sessions for facilitators help them to interact with diverse students and EBEs.
DOCUMENT
Background: The number of people suffering from one or more chronic conditions is rising, resulting in an increase in patients with complex health care demands. Interprofessional collaboration and the use of shared care plans support the management of complex health care demands of patients with chronic illnesses. This study aims to get an overview of the scientific literature on developing interprofessional shared care plans. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature regarding the development of interprofessional shared care plans. A systematic database search resulted in 45 articles being included, 5 of which were empirical studies concentrating purely on the care plan. Findings were synthesised using directed content analysis. Results: This review revealed three themes. The first theme was the format of the shared care plan, with the following elements: patient’s current state; goals and concerns; actions and interventions; and evaluation. The second theme concerned the development of shared care plans, and can be categorised as interpersonal, organisational and patient-related factors. The third theme covered tools, whose main function is to support professionals in sharing patient information without personal contact. Such tools relate to documentation of and communication about patient information. Conclusion: Care plan development is not a free-standing concept, but should be seen as the result of an underlying process of interprofessional collaboration between team members, including the patient. To integrate the patients’ perspectives into the care plans, their needs and values need careful consideration. This review indicates a need for new empirical studies examining the development and use of shared care plans and evaluating their effects.
DOCUMENT
A Meta-Model of Interprofessional Development is proposed as an integrated theory-based and procedure-centered roadmap for interprofessional collaboration. The Model is designed to inform and connect interprofessional priorities and integrate perspectives of interprofessional practice, education and research. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive and integrated guide to enhance interprofessional collaboration given any context and/or purpose. The model proposes an operational and a strategic dimension that build on a diversity of profession-specific expertise. These dimensions consist of developmental phases related to one or more interprofessional priorities. The operational dimension and the strategic dimension influence each other. All phases influence practice, education and research perspectives. The meta-model states that each interprofessional priority is subject to practice, teachable through education, and verifiable by science. While interprofessional activity may have a common ground; priorities do result in different professional contributions and activities depending on perspective, context, and purpose. This common ground of interprofessional priorities consists of negotiating and appreciating professional identity related to role clarity, shared problem domains, different and complementary approaches to solve a shared problem, interprofessional planning and execution of an interprofessional plan. In addition, interprofessional collaboration depends on other priorities such as engagement, effort and influence at individual, collective and systemic levels. These priorities involve interprofessional identity formation, networks and/or community of practice challenges and the systemic influence of power, policy and politics. Developing interprofessional collaboration is a complex process and the authors hope this meta-model will help students, educators, practitioners and researchers unpack the complexities of interprofessional collaboration.
LINK
Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. Objectives: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions. Methods. Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis. Results: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation. Conclusion: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members’ awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.
DOCUMENT
Treatment guidelines difer signifcantly, not only between Europe and North America but also among European countries [1–4]. Reasons for these diferences include antimicrobial resistance patterns, accessibility to and reimbursement policies for medicines, and culturally and historically determined prescribing attitudes. The European Association of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics’ Education Working Group has launched several initiatives to improve and harmonize European pharmacotherapy education, but international diferences have proven to be a major barrier to these eforts [5–7]. While we have taken steps to chart these diferences [6, 8], it will probably not be possible to fully resolve them. Rather than viewing these diferences as a barrier, we should perhaps see them as an opportunity for intercultural learning by providing students and teachers a valuable lesson in the context-dependent nature of prescribing medication and the diferent interpretations of evidence-based medicine. Here, we extend our experience with interprofessional student-run clinics [9, 10], to report on our first experiences with the “International and Interprofessional Student-run Clinic.” We organized three successful video meetings with medical and pharmacy students of the Amsterdam UMC, location VU University (the Netherlands), and the University of Bologna (Italy). During these meetings, one of the students presented a real-life case of a patient on polypharmacy. Then, in a 45-min session, the students split into smaller groups (break-out rooms) to review the patient’s medication, using the prescribing optimization method and STOPP/ START criteria [11, 12]. The teachers rotated between the diferent rooms and assisted the students when necessary. Teachers and students reconvened for 60 min for debriefng, with students presenting their fndings and suggestions to revise the medication list and teachers stimulating discussion and indicating how they would alter the medication list. Participation was voluntary, and the meetings were held in the evenings to accommodate students in clinical rotations. Third-to-fnal-year medical and pharmacy students participated in the three meetings (n=17, n=20, n=12, respectively). They reported learning a lot from each other, gaining an international and interprofessional perspective. Moreover, they learned to always consider the patient’s perspective, that evidence-based medicine is context-dependent, and that guidelines should be adapted to the patient’s situation.
MULTIFILE
Abstract Primary healthcare professionals face an increasing number of geriatrics patients, and patient care often involves different disciplines. eHealth offers opportunities to support interprofessional collaboration (IPC). This exploratory study aimed to gain insight in 1) IPC in community-based rehabilitation, 2) facilitators and barriers for technology-based IPC and 3) technological IPC solutions envisioned by the primary healthcare professionals An focus group with six primary healthcare professionals and a design thinking session with four participants were conducted. Data analysis was based upon an IPC model. Results indicate that facilitators and barriers for IPC can be clustered in three categories: human, organization and technology, and provide some requirements to develop suitable IPC technological solutions Primary healthcare professionals recognise the urgency of working collaboratively. Current barriers are understanding each other’s professional vocabulary, engaging the older adults, and using technology within the patient’s environment. Further research is needed to integrate IPC components in a technological solution
DOCUMENT
Clear role descriptions promote the quality of interprofessional collaboration. Currently, it is unclear to what extent healthcare professionals consider pharmaceutical care (PC) activities to be nurses’ responsibility in order to obtain best care quality. This study aimed to create and evaluate a framework describing potential nursing tasks in PC and to investigate nurses’ level of responsibility. A framework of PC tasks and contextual factors was developed based on literature review and previous DeMoPhaC project results. Tasks and context were cross-sectionally evaluated using an online survey in 14 European countries. A total of 923 nurses, 240 physicians and 199 pharmacists responded. The majority would consider nurses responsible for tasks within: medication self-management (86–97%), patient education (85–96%), medication safety (83–95%), monitoring adherence (82–97%), care coordination (82–95%), and drug monitoring (78–96%). The most prevalent level of responsibility was ‘with shared responsibility’. Prescription management tasks were considered to be nurses’ responsibility by 48–81% of the professionals. All contextual factors were indicated as being relevant for nurses’ role in PC by at least 74% of the participants. No task nor contextual factor was removed from the framework after evaluation. This framework can be used to enable healthcare professionals to openly discuss allocation of specific (shared) responsibilities and tasks.
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
