Article

Professional differences in interprofessional working.

Academic Unit of Child Health, University of Sheffield, PGME Stephenson Unit, Western Bank, Sheffield, UK.
Journal of Interprofessional Care (Impact Factor: 1.48). 07/2008; 22(3):239-51. DOI: 10.1080/13561820802054655
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT UK government policy is encouraging healthcare staff to blur traditional roles, in the drive to increase joint working between practitioners. However, there is currently a lack of clarity regarding the impact that changes to traditional working practice might have on staff delivering the services, or on patient care. In this article, we report findings from three qualitative case studies examining interprofessional practice in stroke care, in which the influence of professional differences emerged as a significant theme. We draw on findings from individual semi-structured interviews, as well as fieldwork observations, to describe the influence of professional knowledge and skills, role and identity, and power and status considerations in interprofessional working. The insights that were gained contribute to the understanding of how professional differences impact on healthcare staff joint working, and suggest that the elements identified need to be fully considered in drives towards changed working practice.

5 Bookmarks
 · 
559 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Interprofessional teamwork has become an integral feature of healthcare delivery in a wide range of conditions and services in many countries. Many assumptions are made in healthcare literature and policy about how interprofessional teams function and about the outcomes of interprofessional teamwork. Realist synthesis is an approach to reviewing research evidence on complex interventions which seeks to explore these assumptions. It does this by unpacking the mechanisms of an intervention, exploring the contexts which trigger or deactivate them and connecting these contexts and mechanisms to their subsequent outcomes. This is the second in a series of four papers reporting a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamworking. The paper discusses four of the 13 mechanisms identified in the synthesis: collaboration and coordination; pooling of resources; individual learning; and role blurring. These mechanisms together capture the day-to-day functioning of teams and the dependence of that on members' understanding each others' skills and knowledge and learning from them. This synthesis found empirical evidence to support all four mechanisms, which tentatively suggests that collaboration, pooling, learning, and role blurring are all underlying processes of interprofessional teamwork. However, the supporting evidence for individual learning was relatively weak, therefore there may be assumptions made about learning within healthcare literature and policy that are not founded upon strong empirical evidence. There is a need for more robust research on individual learning to further understand its relationship with interprofessional teamworking in healthcare.
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 07/2014; · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The rapid response system (RRS) is a patient safety initiative instituted to enable healthcare professionals to promptly access help when a patient’s status deteriorates. Despite patients meeting the criteria, up to one-third of the RRS cases that should be activated are not called, constituting a ‘‘missed RRS call’’. Using a case study approach, 10 focus groups of senior and junior nurses and physicians across four hospitals in Australia were conducted to gain greater insight into the social, professional and cultural factors that mediate the usage of the RRS. Participants’ experiences with the RRS were explored from an interprofessional and collective competence perspective. Health professionals’ reasons for not activating the RRS included: distinct intraprofessional clinical decision-making pathways; a highly hierarchical pathway in nursing, and a more autonomous pathway in medicine; and interprofessional communication barriers between nursing and medicine when deciding to make and actually making a RRS call. Participants also characterized the RRS as a work-around tool that is utilized when health professionals encounter problematic interprofessional communication. The results can be conceptualized as a form of collective incompetence that have important implications for the design and implementation of interprofessional patient safety initiatives, such as the RRS. http://informahealthcare.com/eprint/SuqtRDrSCuRqhyryaZhT/full
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 11/2014; Early Online: 1–7. · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract This article is the third in a series reporting the process and findings of a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamwork in health and social care. The synthesis articulated and tested four "mechanisms" (processes) of teamwork related to communication and found variable evidence to support them. Evidence was strongest for "efficient, open and equitable communication" and "tactical communication", but lacking for the shared responsibility element of the "shared responsibility and influence" mechanism. Little evidence was found to support or oppose the mechanism, "team behavioural norms", so its status as a mechanism of interprofessional teamwork is unclear. A striking finding for all the mechanisms was the dearth of information on how they affected patient clinical outcomes and experiences.
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 07/2014; · 1.48 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
40 Downloads
Available from
Jul 22, 2014