Dataset Information

Interprofessional practice in different patient care settings: A qualitative exploration.

ABSTRACT: Increasing interprofessional practice is seen as a path to improved quality, decreased cost, and enhanced patient experience. However, little is known about how context shapes interprofessional work and how interventions should be crafted to account for a specific setting of interprofessional practice. To better understand, how the work of interprofessional practice differs across patient care settings we sought to understand the social processes found in varying work contexts to better understand how care is provided. A case study design was used in this study to yield a picture of patient care across three different settings. Qualitative analysis of teams from three healthcare settings (rehabilitation, acute care, and code team) was conducted, through the use of ten in-depth semi-structured interviews. Interview data from each participant were analyzed via an inductive content analysis approach based upon theories of work and teams from organisational science, a framework for interprofessional practice, and competencies for interprofessional education. The work processes of interprofessional practice varied across settings. Information exchange was more physician-centric and decision-making was more physician dominant in the non-rehabilitation settings. Work was described as concurrent only for the code team. Goal setting varied by setting and interpersonal relationships were only mentioned as important in the rehabilitation setting. The differences observed across settings identify some insights into how context shapes the process of interprofessional collaboration and some research questions that need further study.

SUBMITTER: DiazGranados D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6361112 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interprofessional practice in different patient care settings: A qualitative exploration.

DiazGranados Deborah D Dow Alan W AW Appelbaum Nital N Mazmanian Paul E PE Retchin Sheldon M SM

Journal of interprofessional care 20171030 2

Increasing interprofessional practice is seen as a path to improved quality, decreased cost, and enhanced patient experience. However, little is known about how context shapes interprofessional work and how interventions should be crafted to account for a specific setting of interprofessional practice. To better understand, how the work of interprofessional practice differs across patient care settings we sought to understand the social processes found in varying work contexts to better understa ...[more]

PMID: 29083254

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe importance of patient-centred care (PCC) has been increasingly recognised. However, there is limited work exploring what doctors actually understand by PCC, and how they perceive they acquire PCC skills in the workplace. The objectives of our study were to explore (1) what UK doctors, in specialist training, perceive to be the essential components of PCC, (2) if/how they acquire these skills, (3) any facilitators/barriers for engaging in PCC and (4) views on their PCC training.DesignQualitative study using in-depth individual semi-structured interviews with UK specialist trainees. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed.Setting and participantsThirty-one specialist trainee doctors, with at least 4 years postgraduate experience, were interviewed. Participants worked in various medical specialities within the Medical Directorate of an acute hospital in the East Midlands of England.ResultsInterview data were transcribed verbatim and categorised into three main themes. The first theme was 'Understanding PCC' where the doctors gave varied perspectives on what they understood by PCC. Although many were able to highlight key components of PCC, there were also some accounts which demonstrated a lack of understanding. The second theme was 'Learning PCC skills: A work in progress'. Learning to be patient-centred was perceived to be an ongoing process. Within this, trainee doctors reported 'on-the-job' learning as the main means of acquiring PCC skills, but they also saw a place for formal training (eg, educational sessions focussing on PCC, role play). 'Delivering PCC: Beyond the physician' referred to the many influences the doctors reported in learning and delivering PCC including patients, the organisation and colleagues. Observing consultants taking a patient-centred approach was cited as an important learning tool.ConclusionsOur findings may assist clinical educators in understanding how trainee doctors perceive PCC, and the factors that influence their learning, thereby helping them shape PCC skills training.

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:BACKGROUND: Medical care delivered in hospital-based medicine units requires interprofessional collaborative care (IPCC) to improve quality. However, models such as bedside interprofessional rounds, or encounters that include the team of physician and nurse providers discussing medical care at the patient's bedside, are not well studied. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence of and time spent in bedside interprofessional rounds on internal medicine teaching services in one academic medical center. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational descriptive study of internal medicine faculty serving as inpatient medicine attending physicians. Participants completed a daily electronic survey following team rounding sessions to assess rounding characteristics (November 2012-June 2013); variables such as resident level-of-training, attending physician years' of experience, house staff call day and clinic schedule were obtained from administrative data. Descriptive, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariable logistic regression statistics were used to evaluate the study objectives. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were: (1) incidence of bedside interprofessional rounds, (2) time spent with patients during bedside interprofessional rounding encounters, and, (3) factors associated with increased occurrence of and time spent with patients during bedside interprofessional rounds. Covariates included resident level-of-training, attending physician years' of experience, census size, and call day. KEY RESULTS: Of 549 rounding sessions, 412 surveys were collected (75 % response) from 25 attending physicians. Bedside interprofessional rounds occurred with 64 % of patients (median 8.0 min/encounter), differing by unit (intermediate care 81 %, general medicine 63 %, non-medicine 57 %, p < 0.001). Factors independently associated with increased occurrence of bedside interprofessional rounds were senior resident (OR 2.67, CI 1.75-4.06, PGY-3/PGY-4 vs. PGY-2), weekdays (OR 1.74, CI 1.13-2.69), team census size ≤ 11 (OR 2.36, CI 1.37-4.06), and attending physicians with ≤ 4 years' experience (OR 2.15, CI 1.31-3.55). Factors independently associated with increased time spent during encounters were attending physicians with ≤ 4 years (OR 2.38, CI 1.44-3.95), 5-15 years of experience (OR 1.82, CI 1.10-3.02), and weekdays (OR 1.71, CI 1.10-2.65). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight factors associated with increasing or decreasing occurrence and time spent in bedside interprofessional collaborative care delivery. Systematic changes to census size caps, resident scheduling, and attending physician education and staffing may be required to increase the occurrence of interprofessional collaborative care.

Project description:BackgroundGoals of care (GOC) is a communication and decision-making process that occurs between a clinician and a patient (or surrogate decision-maker) during an episode of care to facilitate a plan of care that is consistent with the patient's preferences and values. Little is known about patients' experiences of these discussions.ObjectiveThis study explored patients' perspectives of the GOC discussion in the hospital setting.DesignAn explorative qualitative design was used within a social constructionist framework.ParticipantsAdult patients were recruited from six Australian hospitals across two states. Eligible patients had had a GOC discussion and they were identified by the senior nurse or their doctor for informed consent and interview.ApproachSemi-structured individual or dyadic interviews (with the carer/family member present) were conducted at the bedside or at the patient's home (for recently discharged patients). Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed for themes.Key resultsThirty-eight patient interviews were completed. The key themes identified were (1) values and expectations, and (2) communication (sub-themes: (i) facilitators of the conversation, (ii) barriers to the conversation, and (iii) influence of the environment). Most patients viewed the conversation as necessary and valued having their preferences heard. Effective communication strategies and a safe, private setting were facilitators of the GOC discussion. Deficits in any of these key elements functioned as a barrier to the process.ConclusionsEffective communication, and patients' values and expectations set the stage for goals of care discussions; however, the environment plays a significant role. Communication skills training and education designed to equip clinicians to negotiate GOC interactions effectively are essential. These interventions must also be accompanied by systemic changes including building a culture supportive of GOC, clear policies and guidelines, and champions who facilitate uptake of GOC discussions.

Project description:Background. A culture of stringent drug policy, one-size-fits-all treatment approaches, and drug-related stigma has clouded clinical HIV practice in the United States. The result is a series of missed opportunities in the HIV care environment. An approach which may address the broken relationship between patient and provider is harm reduction-which removes judgment and operates at the patient's stage of readiness. Harm reduction is not a routine part of care; rather, it exists outside clinic walls, exacerbating the divide between compassionate, stigma-free services and the medical system. Methods. Qualitative, phenomenological, semi-structured, individual interviews with patients and providers were conducted in three publicly-funded clinics in Chicago, located in areas of high HIV prevalence and drug use and serving African-American patients (N = 38). A deductive thematic analysis guided the process, including: the creation of an index code list, transcription and verification of interviews, manual coding, notation of emerging themes and refinement of code definitions, two more rounds of coding within AtlasTi, calculation of Cohen's Kappa for interrater reliability, queries of major codes and analysis of additional common themes. Results. Thematic analysis of findings indicated that the majority of patients felt receptive to harm reduction interventions (safer injection counseling, safer stimulant use counseling, overdose prevention information, supply provision) from their provider, and expressed anticipated gratitude for harm reduction information and/or supplies within the HIV care visit, although some were reluctant to talk openly about their drug use. Provider results were mixed, with more receptivity reported by advanced practice nurses, and more barriers cited by physicians. Notable barriers included: role-perceptions, limited time, inadequate training, and the patients themselves. Discussion. Patients are willing to receive harm reduction interventions from their HIV care providers, while provider receptiveness is mixed. The findings reveal critical implications for diffusion of harm reduction into HIV care, including the need to address cited barriers for both patients and providers to ensure feasibility of implementation. Strategies to address these barriers are discussed, and recommendations for further research are also shared.

Project description:BackgroundAcross healthcare systems, current health policies promote interprofessional teamwork. Compared to single-profession general practitioner care, interprofessional primary healthcare teams are expected to possess added capacity to care for an increasingly complex patient population. This study aims to explore patients' experiences when their usual primary healthcare encounter with general practice shifts from single-profession general practitioner care to interprofessional team-based care.MethodsQualitative and quantitative data were collected through interviews and a survey among Norwegian patients. The interviews included ten patients (five women and five men) aged between 28 and 89, and four next of kin (all women). The qualitative analysis was carried out using thematic analysis and a continuity framework. The survey included 287 respondents, comprising 58 per cent female and 42 per cent male participants, aged 18 years and above. The respondents exhibited multiple diagnoses and often a lengthy history of illness. All participants experienced the transition to interprofessional teamwork at their general practitioner surgery as part of a primary healthcare team pilot.ResultsThe interviewees described team-based care as more fitting and better coordinated, including more time and more learning than with single-profession general practitioner care. Most survey respondents experienced improvements in understanding and mastering their health problems. Multi-morbid elderly interviewees and interviewees with mental illness shared experiences of improved information continuity. They found that important concerns they had raised with the nurse were known to the general practitioner and vice versa. None of the interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with the inclusion of a nurse in their general practitioner relationship. Several interviewees noted improved access to care. The nurse was seen as a strengthening link to the general practitioner. The survey respondents expressed strong agreement with being followed up by a nurse. The interviewees trusted that it was their general practitioner who controlled what happened to them in the general practitioner surgery.ConclusionFrom the patients' perspective, interprofessional teamwork in general practice can strengthen management, informational, and relational continuity. However, a prerequisite seems to be a clear general practitioner presence in the team.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetes mellitus is highly prevalent and associated with huge economic burden globally. The conventional care and management of diabetes mellitus is highly fragmented and complex, warranting the need for a comprehensive Collaborative Care Model (CCM). Little is known about the perception of patients with diabetes and their healthcare providers about CCM, its barriers and facilitators. This study aimed to explore the value of CCM in diabetes care at a primary healthcare (PHC) setting from the perspective of patients with diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs), in an effort to expand our current knowledge on collaborative care in diabetes at primary care level for the purpose of quality improvement and service expansion.MethodsUsing an exploratory case study approach, semi-structured interviews were conducted among patients and HCPs who encountered CCM in Qatar during 2019 and 2020. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and the data were analysed and interpreted using a deductive-inductive thematic analysis approach.ResultsTwelve patients and 12 HCPs at a diabetes clinic participated in one-to-one interviews. The interviews resulted in five different themes: the process and components of collaborative care model (four subthemes), current organizational support and resources (three subthemes), impact of collaborative care model on diabetes outcomes (three subthemes), enablers of collaborative care model (three subthemes), and barriers to collaborative care model (three subthemes). The participants indicated easy access to and communication with competent and pleasant HCPs. The patients appreciated the extra time spent with HCPs, frequent follow-up visits, and health education, which empowered them to self-manage diabetes. HCPs believed that successful CCM provision relied on their interest and commitment to care for patients with diabetes. Generally, participants identified barriers and facilitators that are related to patients, HCPs, and healthcare system.ConclusionsThe providers and users of CCM had an overall positive perception and appreciation of this model in PHC settings. Barriers to CCM such as undesirable attributes of HCPs and patients, unsupportive hospital system, and high workload must be addressed before implementing the model in other PHC settings.

Dataset Information

Interprofessional practice in different patient care settings: A qualitative exploration.

Publications

Interprofessional practice in different patient care settings: A qualitative exploration.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets