Dataset Information

A Scoping Review of Facilitators of Multi-Professional Collaboration in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:Multi-professional collaboration (MPC) is essential for the delivery of effective and comprehensive care services. As in other European countries, primary care in Norway is challenged by altered patient values and the increased expectations of health administrations to participate in team-based care. This scoping review reports on the organisational, processual, relational and contextual facilitators of collaboration between general practitioners (GP) and other healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary care. Methods:A systematic search in specialist and Scandinavian databases retrieved 707 citations. Following the inclusion criteria, nineteen studies were considered eligible and examined according to Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework for scoping reviews. The retrieved literature was analysed employing a content analysis approach. A group of stakeholders commented on study findings to enhance study validity. Results:Primary care research into MPC is immature and emerging in Norway. Our analysis showed that introducing common procedures for documentation and handling of patient data, knowledge sharing, and establishing local specialised multi-professional teams, facilitates MPC. The results indicate that advancements in work practices benefit from an initial system-level foundation with focus on local management and MPC leadership. Further, our results show that it is preferable to enhance collaborative skills before introducing new professional teams, roles and responsibilities. Investing in professional relations could build trust, respect and continuity. In this respect, sufficient time must be allocated during the working day for professionals to share reflections and engage in mutual learning. Conclusion:There is a paucity of research concerning the application and management of MPC in Norwegian primary care. The work practices and relations between professionals, primary care institutions and stakeholders on a macro level is inadequate. Health care is a complex system in which HCPs need managerial support to harvest the untapped benefits of MPC in primary care. As international research demonstrates, local managers must be supported with infrastructure on a macro level to understand the embedding of practice and look at what professionals actually do and how they work.

SUBMITTER: Sorensen M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6137624 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Scoping Review of Facilitators of Multi-Professional Collaboration in Primary Care.

Sørensen Monica M Stenberg Una U Garnweidner-Holme Lisa L

International journal of integrated care 20180830 3

<h4>Introduction</h4>Multi-professional collaboration (MPC) is essential for the delivery of effective and comprehensive care services. As in other European countries, primary care in Norway is challenged by altered patient values and the increased expectations of health administrations to participate in team-based care. This scoping review reports on the organisational, processual, relational and contextual facilitators of collaboration between general practitioners (GP) and other healthcare pr ...[more]

PMID: 30220896

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCare pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC).MethodsA systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65?years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (main project reports) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed.ResultsFourteen studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators.ConclusionsIn the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689.

Project description:In primary health care, multi-stakeholder partnerships between clinicians, policy makers, academic representatives and other stakeholders to improve service delivery are becoming more common. Literature on processes and approaches that enhance partnership effectiveness is growing. However, evidence on the performance of the measures of partnership functioning and the achievement of desired outcomes is still limited, due to the field's definitional ambiguity and the challenges inherent in measuring complex and evolving collaborative processes. Reliable measures are needed for external or self-assessment of partnership functioning, as intermediate steps in the achievement of desired outcomes. We adapted the Partnership Self-Assessment Tool (PSAT) and distributed it to multiple stakeholders within five partnerships in Canada and Australia. The instrument contained a number of partnership functioning sub-scales. New sub-scales were developed for the domains of communication and external environment. Partnership synergy was assessed using modified Partnership Synergy Processes and Partnership Synergy Outcomes sub-scales, and a combined Partnership Synergy scale. Ranking by partnership scores was compared with independent ranks based on a qualitative evaluation of the partnerships' development. 55 (90%) questionnaires were returned. Our results indicate that the instrument was capable of discriminating between different levels of dimensions of partnership functioning and partnership synergy even in a limited sample. The sub-scales were sufficiently reliable to have the capacity to discriminate between individuals, and between partnerships. There was negligible difference in the correlations between different partnership functioning dimensions and Partnership Synergy sub-scales. The Communication and External Environment sub-scales did not perform well metrically. The adapted partnership assessment tool is suitable for assessing the achievement of partnership synergy and specific indicators of partnership functioning. Further development of Communication and External Environment sub-scales is warranted. The instrument could be applied to assess internal partnership performance on key indicators across settings, in order to determine if the collaborative process is working well.

Project description:BackgroundImproving funding models and implementing policies that facilitate greater interprofessional collaboration and integration at the primary and allied health level could improve the ongoing quality and safety and future sustainability of the wider health care system by reducing inefficiencies and inequalities. Defining these key health care funding-related models, policies, and concepts, identifying research gaps, and systematically mapping the associated literature will inform future research on this topic.ObjectiveThe aim of this scoping review is to provide a descriptive overview of contemporary health care funding models and the key policies involved in the delivery of primary and allied health care. Further, it will investigate the impact these models and policies have on interprofessional collaboration and integrated service delivery at the primary and allied health care levels.MethodsA search of published and grey literature will be conducted using the following databases: the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and Web of Science. The search will be limited to resources available in the English language and published since 2011. Following the search, an independent screening of titles and abstracts will be undertaken by 2 independent reviewers, with a third reviewer available to resolve any potential disagreements. Full-text resources will then be assessed against the inclusion criteria following the same process. Extracted data will be presented using a convergent narrative approach, accompanied by tables and figures.ResultsElectronic database searches have retrieved 8013 articles. The results of this scoping review are expected in May 2022.ConclusionsThe findings from this review will be used to inform future research projects investigating the role of primary health care funding, interprofessional collaboration, and service integration in improving health care access, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/36448.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM:To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING:A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD:A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS:In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

Dataset Information

A Scoping Review of Facilitators of Multi-Professional Collaboration in Primary Care.

Publications

A Scoping Review of Facilitators of Multi-Professional Collaboration in Primary Care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets