Article

Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

Continuing Education, University of Toronto, Senior Scientist, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Room G1 06, 1075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, ON, Canada, M4N 3M5.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 02/2009; DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Poor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can negatively affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes.
To assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to change IPC, compared to no intervention or to an alternate intervention, on one or more of the following primary outcomes: patient satisfaction and/or the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care provided. Secondary outcomes include the degree of IPC achieved.
We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (2000-2007), MEDLINE (1950-2007) and CINAHL (1982-2007). We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1999 to 2007) and reference lists of the five included studies.
Randomised controlled trials of practice-based IPC interventions that reported changes in objectively-measured or self-reported (by use of a validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and/or health status outcomes and/or healthcare process outcomes and/or measures of IPC.
At least two of the three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. One author extracted data from and assessed risk of bias of included studies, consulting with the other authors when necessary. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in relation to clinical settings, interventions and outcome measures. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format.
Five studies met the inclusion criteria; two studies examined interprofessional rounds, two studies examined interprofessional meetings, and one study examined externally facilitated interprofessional audit. One study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in inpatient medical wards at an acute care hospital showed a positive impact on length of stay and total charges, but another study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in a community hospital telemetry ward found no impact on length of stay. Monthly multidisciplinary team meetings improved prescribing of psychotropic drugs in nursing homes. Videoconferencing compared to audioconferencing multidisciplinary case conferences showed mixed results; there was a decreased number of case conferences per patient and shorter length of treatment, but no differences in occasions of service or the length of the conference. There was also no difference between the groups in the number of communications between health professionals recorded in the notes. Multidisciplinary meetings with an external facilitator, who used strategies to encourage collaborative working, was associated with increased audit activity and reported improvements to care.
In this updated review, we found five studies (four new studies) that met the inclusion criteria. The review suggests that practice-based IPC interventions can improve healthcare processes and outcomes, but due to the limitations in terms of the small number of studies, sample sizes, problems with conceptualising and measuring collaboration, and heterogeneity of interventions and settings, it is difficult to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPC and its effectiveness. More rigorous, cluster randomised studies with an explicit focus on IPC and its measurement, are needed to provide better evidence of the impact of practice-based IPC interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These studies should include qualitative methods to provide insight into how the interventions affect collaboration and how improved collaboration contributes to changes in outcomes.

3 Followers
 · 
241 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The implementation of interdisciplinary teams in the intensive care unit (ICU) has focused attention on leadership behavior. A daily recurrent situation in ICUs in which both leadership behavior and interdisciplinary teamwork are integrated concerns the interdisciplinary rounds (IDRs). Although IDRs are recommended to provide optimal interdisciplinary and patient-centered care, there are no checklists available for leading physicians. We tested the measurement properties and implementation of a checklist to assess the quality of leadership skills in interdisciplinary rounds. The measurement properties of the checklist, which included 10 essential quality indicators, were tested for interrater reliability and internal consistency and by factor analysis. The interrater reliability among 3 raters was good (κ, 0.85) and the internal consistency was acceptable (α, 0.74). Factor analysis showed all factor loadings on 1 domain (>0.65). The checklist was further implemented during videotaped IDRs which were led by senior physicians and in which 99 patients were discussed. Implementation of the checklist showed a wide range of "no" and "yes" scores among the senior physicians. These results may underline the need for such a checklist to ensure tasks are synchronized within the team.
  • Source
    09/2010; Blackwell-Wiley.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Literature shows that interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a challenging phenomenon both in theory and practice, and it is affected by socio-cultural contexts in which the health professionals (HPs) play their roles. Considering some evidences on the similarities and differences between eastern and western socio-cultural contexts, this study aims to explore and describe the socio-cultural factors influencing IPC in these two contexts. This was a pilot qualitative descriptive study that was conducted in 2012-2013. Data were collected through conducting one-to-one and group interviews as face-to-face and written in terviews (narratives) with purposeful samples of HPs from various disciplines including nurses, medical doctors (MDs) from variety of specialities, social workers, and psychologists from health system in Iran and Germany. Other methods of data collection were taking field notes and reviewing related literature. The qualitative content analyses method was employed to derive the common categories and themes. Totally 22 participants took part in the study. Moreover, researchers had a 10-day period of field observation in Germany (health systems affiliated with Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg). Qualitative data analysis revealed three themes and related subthemes. The themes were: (1) Interaction beyond boundaries, (2) motivation to engage in IPC, and (3) readiness to approaching toward IPC. The results of the study emphasized that in both eastern and western contexts, organizational, professional, and community socio-cultural textures, mainly in terms of attitudes toward other people, other professions, and IPC, play their role as important factors. We suggest future researches about each of the emerged themes.
    Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research 01/2015; 20(1):99-104.

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
92 Downloads
Available from
May 21, 2014