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: 1.36). 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.

  • 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.
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 11/2014; Early Online: 1–7. DOI:10.3109/13561820.2014.984021 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasingly, researchers are using qualitative methodology to study interprofessional collaboration (IPC). With this increase in use, there seems to be an appreciation for how qualitative studies allow us to understand the unique individual or group experience in more detail and form a basis for policy change and innovative interventions. Furthermore, there is an increased understanding of the potential of studying new or emerging phenomena qualitatively to inform further large-scale studies. Although there is a current trend toward greater acceptance of the value of qualitative studies describing the experiences of IPC, these studies are mostly descriptive in nature. Applying a process suggested by Crotty (1998) may encourage researchers to consider the value in situating research questions within a broader theoretical framework that will inform the overall research approach including methodology and methods. This paper describes the application of a process to a research project and then illustrates how this process encouraged iterative cycles of thinking and doing. The authors describe each step of the process, shares decision-making points, as well as suggests an additional step to the process. Applying this approach to selecting data collection methods may serve to guide and support the qualitative researcher in creating a well-designed study approach.
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 02/2013; 27(4). DOI:10.3109/13561820.2013.763775 · 1.36 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Transformation in the structure and delivery of services for children and young people in the UK Children Act (Department for Education & Skills, 2004. The Children Act. London: HMSO) initiated new alliances between statutory, public and voluntary agencies. Traditional relationships and notions of partnership have been extended, necessitating an innovative approach to dialogue and multiple perspectives. Hudson's assertion that although the "rhetoric on partnering remains strong, the real policy thrust is now about choice and contestability" (2006, Journal of Integrated Care, 14(1), 13-21) exemplifies the dynamic policy context around notions of partnership and the rationale for collaborative advantage. This paper explores the experiences of practitioners working in a relatively new multi-agency context--the common assessment framework (CAF). Envisaged as a standardized approach to the assessment of need and as a tool to facilitate integrated working, the CAF is utilized by practitioners in the UK to improve outcomes for children and young people. We present data from a study that employed an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach and gathered semi-structured interviews with 20 practitioners. Interviews drew upon their experiences of interprofessional working in which diversity, partnership working, and competing aims and objectives emerged as significant themes. The insights that were gained are discussed in terms of their potential impact on service delivery in the UK and their contribution toward responsive practice across dynamic professional boundaries.
    Journal of Interprofessional Care 03/2012; 26(2):134-40. DOI:10.3109/13561820.2011.630111 · 1.36 Impact Factor