Dataset Information

Improving interprofessional coordination in Dutch midwifery and obstetrics: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Coordination between the autonomous professional groups in midwifery and obstetrics is a key debate in the Netherlands. At the same time, it remains unclear what the current coordination challenges are.

Methods

To examine coordination challenges that might present a barrier to delivering optimal care, we conducted a qualitative field study focusing on midwifery and obstetric professional's perception of coordination and on their routines. We undertook 40 interviews with 13 community midwives, 8 hospital-based midwives and 19 obstetricians (including two resident obstetricians), and conducted non-participatory observations at the worksite of these professional groups.

Results

We identified challenges in terms of fragmented organizational structures, different perspectives on antenatal health and inadequate interprofessional communication. These challenges limited professionals' coordinating capacity and thereby decreased their ability to provide optimal care. We also found that pregnant women needed to compensate for suboptimal coordination between community midwives and secondary caregivers by taking on an active role in facilitating communication between these professionals.

Conclusions

The communicative role that pregnant women play within coordination processes underlines the urgency to improve coordination. We recommend increasing multidisciplinary meetings and training, revising the financial reimbursement system, implementing a shared maternity notes system and decreasing the expertise gap between providers and clients. In the literature, communication by clients in support of coordination has been largely ignored. We suggest that studies include client communication as part of the coordination process.

SUBMITTER: Scholmerich VL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4021099 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and methodsTo guide achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, we used the Lives Saved Tool to provide a novel simulation of potential maternal, fetal, and newborn lives and costs saved by scaling up midwifery and obstetrics services, including family planning, in 58 low- and middle-income countries. Typical midwifery and obstetrics interventions were scaled to either 60% of the national population (modest coverage) or 99% (universal coverage).FindingsUnder even a modest scale-up, midwifery services including family planning reduce maternal, fetal, and neonatal deaths by 34%. Increasing midwifery alone or integrated with obstetrics is more cost-effective than scaling up obstetrics alone; when family planning was included, the midwifery model was almost twice as cost-effective as the obstetrics model, at $2,200 versus $4,200 per death averted. The most effective strategy was the most comprehensive: increasing midwives, obstetricians, and family planning could prevent 69% of total deaths under universal scale-up, yielding a cost per death prevented of just $2,100. Within this analysis, the interventions which midwifery and obstetrics are poised to deliver most effectively are different, with midwifery benefits delivered across the continuum of pre-pregnancy, prenatal, labor and delivery, and postpartum-postnatal care, and obstetrics benefits focused mostly on delivery. Including family planning within each scope of practice reduced the number of likely births, and thus deaths, and increased the cost-effectiveness of the entire package (e.g., a 52% reduction in deaths with midwifery and obstetrics increased to 69% when family planning was added; cost decreased from $4,000 to $2,100 per death averted).ConclusionsThis analysis suggests that scaling up midwifery and obstetrics could bring many countries closer to achieving mortality reductions. Midwives alone can achieve remarkable mortality reductions, particularly when they also perform family planning services--the greatest return on investment occurs with the scale-up of midwives and obstetricians together.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary healthcare in Sweden and worldwide has a diverse structure with many kinds of healthcare units involved. This is a challenge for collaboration between different professions in primary healthcare, as the different healthcare professions often work in silos. Interprofessional education (IPE) in the context of primary healthcare is less studied than IPE at hospitals and most of the studies in primary healthcare have focused on collaboration between general practitioners and nurses. The aim of this study was to describe how healthcare students perceived conditions for IPE in primary healthcare.MethodsQualitative group interviews were used and a total of 26 students, recruited on a voluntary basis participated in four group interviews with students mixed from study programmes in nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy and medicine. Students from the study programme in medicine were in their second to eleventh semesters of 11 semesters in total, whilst students from the occupational therapist, physiotherapist and nursing programmes were in their fourth to sixth of six semesters in total.ResultsOur findings indicated one theme: Students perceived a need for support and awareness of IPE from both study programmes and clinical placements. Five categories were found to belong to the theme. Students' tunnel-vision focus on their own profession may have affected their ability to collaborate with students from other professions. The nature of the patients' healthcare problems decided if they were perceived as suitable for IPE. Clinical supervisors' support for and attitude towards IPE were important. The hierarchy between different professions was perceived as a hindrance for seeking help from the other professions. The students asked for more collaboration between different study programmes, in order to gain knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of the other professions.ConclusionsIn conclusion, students in this study considered it essential for different study programmes and clinical placements to be more aware of the opportunities for and importance of IPE. The study identified conditions that were required for IPE in primary healthcare that may be helpful for healthcare teachers and clinical supervisors to better understand how students perceive IPE in primary healthcare, thus facilitating the planning of IPE.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) includes the ability to collaborate in an interprofessional team as a core professional activity that trainees should be able to complete on day 1 of residency (Med Sci Educ. 26:797-800, 2016). The training that medical students require in order to achieve this competency, however, is not well established (Med Sci Educ. 26:457-61, 2016), and few studies have examined non-physician healthcare professionals' perspectives regarding resident physicians' interprofessional skills. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to describe non-physicians' views on barriers to collaboration with physicians, as well as factors that contribute to good collaborative relationships. PARTICIPANTS:Nurses, social workers, case managers, dietitians, rehabilitation therapists, and pharmacists at one academic medical center, largely working in the inpatient setting. APPROACH:A qualitative study design was employed. Data were collected from individual interviews and focus groups comprising non-physician healthcare professionals. KEY RESULTS:Knowledge gaps identified as impeding interprofessional collaboration included inadequate understanding of current roles, potential roles, and processes for non-physician healthcare professionals. Specific physician behaviors that were identified as contributing to good collaborative relationships included mutual support such as backing up other team members and prioritizing multidisciplinary rounds, and communication including keeping team members informed, asking for their input, physicians explaining their rationale, and practicing joint problem-solving with non-physicians. CONCLUSIONS:Discussion of how physician trainees can best learn to collaborate as members of an interprofessional team must include non-physician perspectives. Training designed to provide medical students and residents with a better understanding of non-physician roles and to enhance mutual support and communication skills may be critical in achieving the AAMC's goals of making physicians effective members of interprofessional teams, and thus improving patient-centered care. We hope that medical educators will include these areas identified as important by non-physicians in targeted team training for their learners.

Project description:The Center for Interprofessional Training in Medicine at the Faculty of Medicine Carl Gustav Carus at the Technische Universität Dresden, Germany, has offered courses covering interprofessional material since the winter semester 2014/15. The unusual feature of these courses is that they are co-taught by peer tutors from medicine and nursing. This study investigates the subjective experiences of these tutors during the collaborative preparation and teaching of these tutorials with the aim of identifying the effects of equal participation in the perceptions and assessments of the other professional group.Semi-structured, guideline-based interviews were held with six randomly selected tutors. The interviews were analyzed using structuring content analysis.The results show that collaborative work led to reflection, mostly by the university student tutors, on the attitudes held. However, the co-tutors from each professional group were perceived to different degrees as being representative of those in their profession. Asked to master a shared assignment in a non-clinical context, the members of the different professional groups met on equal footing, even if the medical students had already gathered more teaching experience and thus mostly assumed a mentoring role over the course of working on and realizing the teaching units. The nursing tutors were primarily focused on their role as tutor. Both professional groups emphasized that prior to the collaboration they had an insufficient or no idea about the theoretical knowledge or practical skills of the other professional group. Overall, the project was rated as beneficial, and interprofessional education was endorsed.In the discussion, recommendations based on the insights are made for joint tutor training of both professional groups. According to these recommendations, harmonizing the teaching abilities of all tutors is essential to ensure equality during cooperation. Ideally, training programs should be attended together by medical and nursing students to emphasize their shared identity as "tutor".