Knowledge translation and interprofessional collaboration: Where the rubber of evidence-based care hits the road of teamwork.

Knowledge Translation Centre at St. Michael's Hospital and Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Ontario.
Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (Impact Factor: 1.19). 02/2006; 26(1):46-54. DOI: 10.1002/chp.50
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Knowledge-translation interventions and interprofessional education and collaboration interventions all aim at improving health care processes and outcomes. Knowledge-translation interventions attempt to increase evidence-based practice by a single professional group and thus may fail to take into account barriers from difficulties in interprofessional relations. Interprofessional education and collaboration interventions aim to improve interprofessional relations, which may in turn facilitate the work of knowledge translation and thus evidence-based practice. We summarize systematic review work on the effects of interventions for interprofessional education and collaboration. The current evidence base contains mainly descriptive studies of these interventions. Knowledge is limited regarding the impact on care and outcomes and the extent to which the interventions increase the practice of evidence-based care. Rigorous multimethod research studies are needed to develop and strengthen the current evidence base in this field. We describe a Health Canada-funded randomized trial in which quantitative and qualitative data will be gathered in 20 general internal medicine units located at 5 Toronto, Ontario, teaching hospitals. The project examines the impact of interprofessional education and collaboration interventions on interprofessional relationships, health care processes (including evidence-based practice), and patient outcomes. Routes are suggested by which interprofessional education and collaboration interventions might affect knowledge translation and evidence-based practice.


Available from: Scott Reeves, May 16, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: "To better understand why cooperation between health care professionals is still often problematic, we carried out 25" "semistructured face-to-face expert interviews with physicians and nurses in different rural and urban areas in northern Germany. Using Mayring’s qualitative content analysis method to analyze the data collected, we found that doctors and nurses interpreted interprofessional conflicts differently. Nursing seems to be caught in a paradoxical situation: An increasing emphasis is placed on achieving interprofessional cooperation but the core areas of nursing practice are subject to increasing rationalization in the current climate of health care marketization. The subsequent and systematic devaluation of nursing work makes it difficult for physicians to acknowledge nurses’ expertise. We suggest that to ameliorate interprofessional cooperation, nursing must insist on its own logic of action thereby promoting its professionalization; interprofessional cooperation cannot take place until nursing work is valued by all members of the health care system."
    01/2015; 2:1-15. DOI:10.1177/2333393614565185
  • Source
    09/2010; Blackwell-Wiley.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Trauma is the most common cause of mortality among people between the ages of 1 and 45 years, costing Canadians 19.8 billion dollars a year (2004 data), yet half of all patients with major traumatic injuries do not receive evidence-based care, and significant regional variation in the quality of care across Canada exists. Accordingly, our goal is to lead a research project in which stakeholders themselves will adapt evidence-based trauma care knowledge tools to their own varied institutional contexts and cultures. We will do this by developing and assessing the combined impact of WikiTrauma, a free collaborative database of clinical decision support tools, and Wiki101, a training course teaching participants how to use WikiTrauma. WikiTrauma has the potential to ensure that all stakeholders (eg, patients, clinicians, and decision makers) can all contribute to, and benefit from, evidence-based clinical knowledge about trauma care that is tailored to their own needs and clinical setting. Objective: Our main objective will be to study the combined effect of WikiTrauma and Wiki101 on the quality of care in four trauma centers in Quebec. Methods: First, we will pilot-test the wiki with potential users to create a version ready to test in practice. A rapid, iterative prototyping process with 15 health professionals from nonparticipating centers will allow us to identify and resolve usability issues prior to finalizing the definitive version for the interrupted time series. Second, we will conduct an interrupted time series to measure the impact of our combined intervention on the quality of care in four trauma centers that will be selected—one level I, one level II, and two level III centers. Participants will be health care professionals working in the selected trauma centers. Also, five patient representatives will be recruited to participate in the creation of knowledge tools destined for their use (eg, handouts). All participants will be invited to complete the Wiki101 training and then use, and contribute to, WikiTrauma for 12 months. The primary outcome will be the change over time of a validated, composite, performance indicator score based on 15 process performance indicators found in the Quebec Trauma Registry. Results: This project was funded in November 2014 by the Canadian Medical Protective Association. We expect to start this trial in early 2015 and preliminary results should be available in June 2016. Two trauma centers have already agreed to participate and two more will be recruited in the next months. Conclusions: We expect that this study will add important and unique evidence about the effectiveness, safety, and cost savings of using collaborative platforms to adapt knowledge implementation tools across jurisdictions.
    Journal of Medical Internet Research 02/2015; 4(1). DOI:10.2196/resprot.4024 · 4.67 Impact Factor