An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings.Methods
An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual).Results
Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution.Conclusions
The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.
SUBMITTER: Rawlinson C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8231480 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly used but diversely implemented in primary care. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of IPC in primary care settings.MethodsAn overview (review of systematic reviews) was carried out. We searched nine databases and employed a double selection and data extraction method. Patient-related outcomes were categorized, and results coded as improvement (+), worsening (-), mixed results (?) or no change (0).Results34 reviews were included. Six types of IPC were identified: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 8), physician-nurse in primary care (n = 1), primary care physician (PCP)-specialty care provider (n = 5), PCP-pharmacist (n = 3), PCP-mental healthcare provider (n = 15), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 2). In general, IPC in primary care was beneficial for patients with variation between types of IPC. Whereas reviews about IPC in primary care (large scope) showed better processes of care and higher patient satisfaction, other types of IPC reported mixed results for clinical outcomes, healthcare use and patient-reported outcomes. Also, reviews focusing on interventions based on pre-existing and well-defined models, such as collaborative care, overall reported more benefits. However, heterogeneity between the included primary studies hindered comparison and often led to the report of mixed results. Finally, professional- and organizational-related outcomes were under-reported, and cost-related outcomes showed some promising results for IPC based on pre-existing models; results were lacking for other types.ConclusionsThis overview suggests that interprofessional collaboration can be effective in primary care. Better understanding of the characteristics of IPC processes, their implementation, and the identification of effective elements, merits further attention.
| S-EPMC8231476 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn-hospital medication reviews are regularly performed. However, discontinuity in care could occur because secondary care providers lack insight into the outpatient history. Furthermore, for the implementation or follow-up of some medication review-based interventions, the help of primary care providers is essential. This requires interprofessional collaboration between secondary and primary care. Therefore, the aim of this qualitative study was to gain insight into the perceptions of primary and secondary care providers on interprofessional collaboration on medication reviews in hospitalised patients.MethodsTen face-to-face semi-structured interviews and three focus group discussions were conducted with 20 healthcare providers from three hospitals and community health services. The interviews were aimed at exploring general practitioners', community pharmacists', geriatricians', and hospital pharmacists' experiences, attitudes, and views of interprofessional collaboration. Focus groups consisted of representatives of all professional groups. Through group discussion, interprofessional collaboration was explored by addressing three main questions: 1) What are the benefits of in-hospital medication reviews? 2) What are the barriers to in-hospital medication reviews from an interprofessional collaboration perspective? 3) Given the barriers mentioned, how should this interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care be designed? Data were analysed using a thematic-content approach.ResultsThe need for in-hospital medication reviews was underlined due to their many benefits, such as reducing potentially preventable re-admissions. Barriers regarding interprofessional collaboration between primary and secondary care can be subdivided into three main themes: 1) defining in-hospital medication reviews (e.g., lack of clear goals), 2) execution of medication reviews (e.g., hospital setting is dynamic), and 3) follow-up after discharge (e.g., unclear instructions). Care providers suggested solutions for each of the barriers mentioned, for example, by using supportive staff in order to overcome the gap between primary and secondary care providers and making clear agreements on proper means of communication.ConclusionPrimary and secondary care providers recognise the importance of in-hospital medication reviews and the need for interprofessional collaboration. To create satisfying interprofessional collaboration, conditions should be met on defining in-hospital medication reviews across settings and involving both primary and secondary care providers in implementing medication reviews and organising their follow-up.
| S-EPMC7526422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of patients seeking medical care is increasing, necessitating more access to primary healthcare services. As several of these patients usually present with complex medical conditions, the need for interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among health professionals in primary care is necessary. IPC is essential for facing the increasing and challenging healthcare demands. Therefore, the facilitators of and the barriers to IPC should be studied in the hope that the results will be used to promote such endeavors.ObjectivesThis study aimed to explore the perspectives of different health professionals regarding the facilitators of and the barriers to IPC in the primary healthcare settings in Qatar.MethodsA qualitative study using focus groups was conducted within the Primary Health Care Corporation (PHCC) in Qatar. Several health professionals were invited to participate in the focus groups. The focus groups were uniprofessional for general practitioners (GPs), nurses, and dentists, while they were interprofessional for the other health professionals. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and validated by the research team. The data were analyzed by deductive thematic analysis using the "Gears" Conceptual Model as a coding framework.ResultsFourteen focus groups were conducted involving 58 participants (including 17 GPs, 12 nurses, 15 pharmacists, 3 dentists, and 11 allied health professionals) working in PHCC in Qatar. The findings revealed a spectrum of factors influencing IPC, categorized into four main domains: Macro, Meso, Micro, and individual levels, with each accompanied by relevant barriers and facilitators. Key challenges identified included a lack of communication skills, insufficient professional competencies, and power imbalances, among others. To address these challenges, recommendations were made to implement dedicated training sessions on IPC, reduce hierarchical barriers among different health professionals, and enhance the effectiveness of existing systems. Conversely, it was emphasized that projects and campaigns focused on IPC, alongside the development of enhanced communication skills and the presence of supportive leadership, as essential for facilitating effective IPC in PHCCs.ConclusionThe interplay between the meso, macro, micro, and individual levels highlight the significance of a multifaceted approach to interventions, aiming to enhance the successes of IPC. While initiatives like interprofessional education training are underway, numerous challenges persist before achieving improved collaboration and more efficient integration of IPC in the PHCC setting.
| S-EPMC11348528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe demand for clinical trial participants is today one of the highest it has ever been and continues to increase. At the same time, subject recruitment continues to be problematic and the major reason for clinical trial premature terminations. The literature on clinical trial recruitment, which spans several decades and includes hundreds of studies, has an abundance of findings that can be synthesized by way of an overview to provide a well-informed and complete picture of the factors that determine subject participation.ObjectivesAn overview of the systematic reviews that report barriers and facilitators to clinical trial participation was conducted. The extracted data were synthesized, and a thematic framework of the factors that affect subject participation in clinical trials was developed. The overview extended across medical subjects and demographics.MethodsThirty reviews that complied with the inclusion criteria were included. These reviews covered 753 relevant primary studies and reported 881 barriers and facilitators. The barriers and facilitators were thematically synthesized and a thematic framework of 20 themes was developed. The quality of the included reviews was assessed and reported.Main resultsSeveral opportunities to increase clinical trial participation, by developing interventions and changing the trial design, derived from an analysis of the thematic framework. That analysis also showed that most of the 20 themes operate mainly as a barrier or as a facilitator, and that most have an effect across medical subjects. As to the quality elements assessed, some reviews complied almost fully but most only partially.
| S-EPMC8358641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the capacity for advance care planning (ACP) among patients, families and healthcare teams. We sought to identify and review the barriers to and facilitators of ACP implementation for medical staff in different settings (eg, hospitals, outpatient palliative care, nursing and care homes) during the pandemic.DesignThis study employed an overview of reviews design. We searched the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Embase databases for studies published between 8 December 2019 and 30 July 2023. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess the risk of bias.ResultsWe included seven reviews. Common barriers to ACP implementation included visitation restrictions, limited resources and personnel and a lack of coordination among healthcare professionals. In care and nursing homes, barriers included a dearth of palliative care physicians and the psychological burden on facility staff. Using telemedicine for information sharing was a common facilitator across settings. In hospitals, facilitators included short-term training in palliative care and palliative care physicians joining the acute care team. In care and nursing homes, facilitators included ACP education and emotional support for staff.ConclusionsVisitation restrictions and limited resources during the pandemic posed obstacles; however, the implementation of ACP was further hindered by insufficient staff education on ACP in hospitals and facilities, as well as a scarcity of information sharing at the community level. These pre-existing issues were magnified by the pandemic, drawing attention to their significance. Short-term staff training programmes and immediate information sharing could better enable ACP.Prospero registration numberCRD42022351362.
| S-EPMC10565150 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe World Health Organization supports interprofessional collaboration in primary care. On over the past 20 years, community pharmacists had been taking a growing number of new responsibilities and they are recognized as a core member of collaborative care teams as patient-centered care providers. This systematic review aimed to describe interprofessional collaboration in primary care involving a pharmacist, and its effect on patient related outcomes.MethodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials cited in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL in English and French was conducted from inception to November 2022. Studies were included if they described an intervention piloted by a primary care provider and included a pharmacist and if they evaluated the effects of intervention on a disease or on patient related outcomes. The search generated 3494 articles. After duplicates were removed and titles and abstracts screened for inclusion, 344 articles remained.ResultsOverall, 19 studies were included in the review and assessed for quality. We found 14 studies describing an exclusive collaboration between physician and pharmacist with for all studies a three-step model of pharmacist intervention: a medication review, an interview with the patient, and recommendations made to physician. Major topics in the articles eligible for inclusion included cardiovascular diseases with blood pressure, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and risk of cardiovascular diseases. Positive effects concerned principally blood pressure.ConclusionsCollaboration involving pharmacists is mainly described in relation to cardiovascular diseases, for which patient-centered indicators are most often positive. It underscores the need for further controlled studies on pharmacist-involved interprofessional collaboration across various medical conditions to improve consensus on core outcomes measures.
| S-EPMC10983710 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Understanding why people take part in health research is critical to improve research efficiency and generalisability. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to identify psychosocial determinants of research participation and map them to psychological theory and empirical recruitment research, to identify effective strategies to increase research participation. METHODS:Qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews were systematically identified. No date or language limits were applied. Two reviewers independently selected reviews. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR, and poor-quality reviews (scoring 0-3) were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were coded to psychological theory (Theoretical Domains Framework) and empirical recruitment research (recruitment interventions that had been subjected to randomised controlled trial evaluation). RESULTS:We included 26 systematic reviews (429 unique primary studies), covering a wide range of patient populations and health settings. We identified five groups of facilitators, of which three were dominant (potential for personal benefit, altruism, trust) and appear to be relevant across research setting and design. We identified nine groups of barriers, which were more dependent on the particular study (context, population, design). Two determinants (participant information, social influences) were found to be both barriers and facilitators. Barriers and facilitators could be coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the Theoretical Domains Framework; only one was coded to a Capability component. There was some overlap between psychosocial determinants and empirical recruitment research, but some barriers and facilitators had not been tested at all. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying effective recruitment strategies could increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. We identified a number of barriers and facilitators that could be addressed by researchers. There is a need for more research to identify effective recruitment strategies that draw on the psychosocial facilitators and barriers identified in this overview.
| S-EPMC7069042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe increase in the number of chronically ill patients due to ageing is calling existing models of primary care (PC) into question. New care models have recently been implemented in Swiss PC and involve interprofessional teams. This paper aimed to investigate the practice of interprofessional collaboration between advanced practice nurses, registered nurses, and medical practice assistants within new models of PC in Switzerland using the National Interprofessional Competency Framework.MethodsAn ethnographic design comprising semi-structured interviews and non-participant observations was conducted. Sixteen interviews were conducted with care providers at their PC practice. Interviewees included four advanced practice nurses, two registered nurses, six medical practice assistants, and four general practitioners. Nine other health professionals were subsequently observed in their practice. Interviews and observations were conducted by the first author from February to April 2019.ResultsOur analysis of interview and observational data confirmed that role clarification, team functioning, collaborative leadership, interprofessional conflict resolution, patient-centered care, and interprofessional communication have a significant influence on the interprofessional collaboration among health professionals in Swiss PC. Among these domains, role clarification and team functioning were the most frequently raised issues. Both were found to have the potential to negatively influence and, therefore, hinder efficient interprofessional collaboration within PC.ConclusionFrom the analysis, it emerged that role clarification is crucial for effective interprofessional collaboration within new care delivery models in the Swiss PC context. Our study results may inform international health policymakers and practitioners about six important domains of interprofessional care when implementing new care models. Practical experience with new models of care involving advanced practice nurses and medical practice assistants may also influence the regulation of the scope of practice of these health professionals in Switzerland.
| S-EPMC6941298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a key ingredient of integrated care. Nevertheless, IPC benefits remain unclear and its implementation within integrated care initiatives is not straightforward. In this study, we first explored whether IPC was associated with organisational and patient care improvements in Swiss integrated care initiatives; we then investigated the effect of various barriers faced by these initiatives, on these associations.MethodsSelf-reported data from 153 integrated care initiatives included in the Swiss Integrated Care Survey was used. We conducted moderated mediation analyses in which patient care improvements were the outcome, the degree of IPC implementation was the predictor, organisational improvements were the mediator, and professional, patient and financial barriers to integrated care, the moderators.ResultsIPC implementation within integrated care was associated with organisational improvements, which in turn were associated with patient care improvements; this path no longer existed when financial barriers to integrated care were considered.ConclusionOrganisational improvements should be considered a priority when implementing IPC within integrated care initiatives since patient care improvements due to IPC can be expected mainly when organisational aspects are improved. More importantly, the role of financial barriers should be acknowledged, and actions taken to reduce their impact on integrated care.
| S-EPMC7101009 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC6137624 | biostudies-literature