Dataset Information

Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care - an integrative review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

This integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.

Methods

An integrative review, which used systematic review processes, was undertaken to summarise qualitative and quantitative studies published between 1990 and 2012. Databases searched were the Cochrane Library, the Joanna Briggs Institute Library, PubMed, Medline, CINAHL, Informit and ProQuest. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for quality. Study findings were extracted relating to a) barriers and facilitators to collaborative working and b) views and experiences about the process of collaboration. The findings were narratively synthesised, supported by tabulation.

Results

27 studies conducted in seven different countries met the inclusion criteria. Content analysis identified a number of barriers and facilitators of collaboration between nurse practitioners and medical practitioners. By means of data comparison five themes were developed in relation to perceptions and understanding of collaboration. Nurse practitioners and medical practitioners have differing views on the essentials of collaboration and on supervision and autonomous nurse practitioner practice. Medical practitioners who have a working experience with NPs express more positive attitudes towards collaboration. Both professional groups report concerns and negative experiences with collaborative practice but also value certain advantages of collaboration.

Conclusions

The review shows that working in collaboration is a slow progression. Exposure to working together helps to overcome professional hurdles, dispel concerns and provide clarity around roles and the meaning of collaboration of NPs and MPs. Guidelines on liability and better funding strategies are necessary to facilitate collaborative practice whether barriers lie in individual behaviours or in broader policies.

SUBMITTER: Schadewaldt V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3846155 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care - an integrative review.

Schadewaldt Verena V McInnes Elizabeth E Hiller Janet E JE Gardner Anne A

BMC family practice 20130905

<h4>Background</h4>This integrative review synthesises research studies that have investigated the perceptions of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners working in primary health care. The aggregation of evidence on barriers and facilitators to working collaboratively and experiences about the processes of collaboration is of value to understand success factors and factors that impede collaborative working relationships.<h4>Methods</h4>An integrative review, which used systematic review p ...[more]

PMID: 24007269

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care is facing a multimorbid, ageing population and a lack of general practitioners (GPs), especially in rural areas. In many countries, advanced practice nurses (APNs) may be a potential solution for these challenges. Switzerland, however, is in the early stages of APN role development with a handful of pilot projects that are unresearched. Our aim was to explore the experiences of APNs and GPs involved in introducing the APN role to Swiss primary care. METHODS:We organised two focus group discussions with APNs (n =?9) engaged in primary care across German-speaking Switzerland and individual interviews with APNs (n =?2) and GPs (n =?4) from two pilot projects in remote areas. Data analysis followed an exploratory hybrid approach of thematic analysis and was guided by the PEPPA Plus framework. RESULTS:The analysis resulted in five main themes: The participants considered themselves pioneers developing a new model in primary care, seeking to shape and improve future health care ((1) pioneering spirit). Both nurses and doctors agreed on the additional value of the APN role, a role seen as having more time for and a different approach to patient care, bringing higher quality of care and flexibility to the practice ((2) added value from the APN role). Participants also emphasized the importance of asking for advice when unsure about diagnostic steps or appropriate treatment ((3) awareness of limited knowledge and skills). The main barriers identified included the impression that Swiss doctors have little knowledge about nurses in advanced roles ((4) GP's lack of knowledge regarding the APN role), and that further regulations will be important to foster role clarity and accountability ((5) political and legal obstacles in introducing the APN role). CONCLUSIONS:The early phase of introducing APNs to Swiss primary care is characterised by heterogeneous, small-scale projects of pioneering GPs and APNs recognising the added value and limits of APNs despite a lack of governance and knowledge regarding the APN role among GPs. Experiences gained from ongoing projects provide elements of good practice for political discussions and regulations.

Project description:BackgroundImproving the patient experience is one of the quadruple aims of healthcare. Therefore, understanding patient experiences and perceptions of healthcare interactions is paramount to quality improvement. This integrative review aimed to explore how patients with chronic conditions experience Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in primary care.MethodsAn integrative review was conducted to comprehensively synthesize primary studies that used qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods. Databases searched were Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science on June 1st, 2021. Eligible studies were empirical full-text studies in primary care that reported experiences or perceptions of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice by adult patients with a chronic condition, in any language published in any year. Quality appraisal was conducted on included studies using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Data on patients' experiences and perceptions of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice in primary care were extracted, and findings were thematically analyzed through a meta-synthesis.ResultsForty-eight (n = 48) studies met the inclusion criteria with a total of n = 3803 participants. Study quality of individual studies was limited by study design, incomplete reporting, and the potential for positive publication bias. Three themes and their sub-themes were developed inductively: (1) Interacting with Healthcare Teams, subthemes: widening the network, connecting with professionals, looking beyond the condition, and overcoming chronic condition collectively; (2) Valuing Convenient Healthcare, subthemes: sharing space and time, care planning creates structure, coordinating care, valuing the general practitioner role, and affording healthcare; (3) Engaging Self-care, subthemes: engaging passively is circumstantial, and, engaging actively and leading care.ConclusionsPatients overwhelmingly had positive experiences of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice, signaling it is appropriate for chronic condition management in primary care. The patient role in managing their chronic condition was closely linked to their experience. Future studies should investigate how the patient role impacts the experience of patients, carers, and health professionals in this context.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO: CRD42020156536.

Project description:Interprofessional collaborative practice has been shown to be an appropriate model of care for chronic disease management in primary care. However, how patients play a role in this model is relatively unknown. The aim of this constructivist grounded theory focus group study was to explore the perceptions of patient advocates regarding the role of patients in interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care. Primary data were collected from patient advocates, from public and private Australian organisations and who represent patients with chronic disease in primary care, through focus groups in July-August 2020. Videoconference focus groups were recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively, thematically analysed using the five-step approach by Charmaz: (1) initial line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) memo writing, (4) categorisation and (5) theme and sub-theme development. Three focus groups comprising 17 patient advocates with diverse cultural and professional backgrounds participated. Two themes and five sub-themes relating to interprofessional collaborative practice teams were constructed from the data. In theme 1, patients 'shifted across the spectrum of roles' from 'relinquishing control to the team', 'joining the team' to 'disengaging from the team'. The second theme was the need for 'juggling roles' by 'integrating patient role with life roles', and 'learning about the patient role'. The diversity and variability of patient roles as described by patient advocates highlight the challenges of working with people with chronic conditions. The diverse patient roles described by advocates are an important finding that may better inform communication between patients and health professionals when managing chronic conditions. From the health professional perspective, identification of the role of a patient may be challenging. Therefore, future research should explore the development of a tool to assist both patients and health professionals to identify patient roles as they move across the spectrum, with the support of policy makers. This tool should aim to identify and promote patient engagement in interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care settings.

Project description:BackgroundChronic conditions can lead to physical, cognitive and social decline; thus, increasing an individual's dependence on family who assist with activities of daily living. Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), involving two or more health professionals working with the patient and their family, is one model of care for the high-quality management of individuals with chronic conditions in primary care. Nevertheless, family carers have reported a disconnect between themselves and healthcare providers in previous research. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of family carers for individuals with chronic conditions, regarding their involvement in IPCP.MethodsAspects of constructivist grounded theory methodology were used. Family carers of individuals with chronic conditions were invited to participate in a one-on-one, semistructured interview about their experiences with IPCP in the care of their loved one. Interview transcripts were analysed using Charmaz's four-step iterative process: (1) line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) categorisation of codes and (4) potential theme and subtheme development with memo writing to support each phase of analysis. The research team collaborated on reflexivity exercises, the conceptualisation of categories and the development of themes.ResultsConstructivist data analysis of interviews (average 40 min) with 10 family carers resulted in two themes. (1) Stepping in for my loved one represents the notion that carers take on external roles on behalf of their loved ones (subthemes: working with interprofessional teams, supporting independence and learning as I go). (2) Taking on the carer role, represents the internal factors that influence the external roles described in theme 1 (subthemes: feeling obligated to be involved and changing relationship dynamics).ConclusionThis study outlines the external actions and internal influences on family carer involvement in an interprofessional team. The required knowledge and support to care for their loved ones is currently learned in an ad hoc manner, and carers' resources should be better promoted by health professionals. Additionally, the relationship dynamics between a carer and their loved one change as the carer becomes more involved in IPCP and influences how and the extent health professionals involve family carers.Patient or public contributionCarers were the study population involved in this qualitative study. Patient advocates who have chronic conditions, and are informal family carers, were involved in the creation and design of this study, including a review of the research question, participant information sheet and the interview guide.

Project description:BackgroundThere is limited United Kingdom (UK) literature on general practice-based pharmacists' (PBPs') role evolution and few studies have explored general practitioners' (GPs') experiences on pharmacist integration into general practice. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate GPs' experiences with, views of, and attitudes towards PBPs in Northern Ireland (NI).MethodsA paper-based self-administered questionnaire comprising four sections was mailed in 2019 to 329 general practices across NI and was completed by one GP in every practice who had most contact with the PBP. Descriptive analyses were used and responses to open-ended questions were analysed thematically.ResultsThe response rate was 61.7% (203/329). There was at least one PBP per general practice. All GPs had face-to-face meetings with PBPs, with three-quarters (78.7%, n = 159) meeting with the PBP more than once a week. Approximately two-thirds of GPs (62.4%, n = 126) reported that PBPs were qualified as independent prescribers, and 76.2% of these (n = 96/126) indicated that prescribers were currently prescribing for patients. The majority of GPs reported that PBPs always/very often had the required clinical skills (83.6%, n = 162) and knowledge (87.0%, n = 167) to provide safe and effective care for patients. However, 31.1% (n = 61) stated that PBPs only sometimes had the confidence to make clinical decisions. The majority of GPs (> 85%) displayed largely positive attitudes towards collaboration with PBPs. Most GPs agreed/strongly agreed that PBPs will have a positive impact on patient outcomes (95.0%, n = 192) and can provide a better link between general practices and community pharmacists (96.1%, n = 194). However, 24.8% of GPs (n = 50) were unclear if the PBP role moved community pharmacists to the periphery of the primary care team. An evaluation of the free-text comments indicated that GPs were in favour of more PBP sessions and full-time posts.ConclusionMost GPs had positive views of, and attitudes towards, PBPs. The findings may have implications for future developments in order to extend integration of PBPs within general practice, including the enhancement of training in clinical skills and decision-making. Exploring PBPs', community pharmacists' and patients' views of this role in general practice is required to corroborate study findings.

Dataset Information

Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care - an integrative review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Views and experiences of nurse practitioners and medical practitioners with collaborative practice in primary health care - an integrative review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets