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
 · 
529 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: To explore the experiences of governance and incentives during organizational change for managers and clinical staff. Three primary care settings in England in 2006-2008. Data collection involved three group interviews with 32 service users, individual interviews with 32 managers, and 56 frontline professionals in three sites. The Realistic Evaluation framework was used in analysis to examine the effects of new policies and their implementation. Integrating new interprofessional teams to work effectively is a slow process, especially if structures in place do not acknowledge the painful feelings involved in change and do not support staff during periods of uncertainty. Eliciting multiple perspectives, often dependent on individual occupational positioning or place in new team configurations, illuminates the need to incorporate the emotional as well as technocratic and system factors when implementing change. Some suggestions are made for facilitating change in health care systems. These are discussed in the context of similar health care reform initiatives in the United States.
    Health Services Research 07/2013; · 2.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: This study examines pharmacist preceptors' and pharmacy students' experiences at an interprofessional student-run clinic: Student Health Initiative for the Needs of Edmonton (SHINE). On Saturday afternoons, students and preceptors from medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, nursing, social work and nutrition work together to care for adolescents and young adults from Edmonton inner city areas.
    Canadian Pharmacists Journal 144(4):179-185.

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
29 Downloads
Available from
Jul 22, 2014