Dataset Information

What do patients experience? Interprofessional collaborative practice for chronic conditions in primary care: an integrative review

ABSTRACT:

Background

Improving 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.

Methods

An 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.

Results

Forty-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.

Conclusions

Patients 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 registration

PROSPERO: CRD42020156536.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01595-6.

SUBMITTER: Davidson A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759162 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis 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.MethodsAn 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.Results27 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

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: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.

Project description:ImportanceInterprofessional collaborative practice (ICP), the collaboration of health workers from different professional backgrounds with patients, families, caregivers, and communities, is central to optimal primary care. However, limited evidence exists regarding its association with patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the association of ICP with hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) levels among adults receiving primary care.Data sourcesA literature search of English language journals (January 2013-2018; updated through March 2020) was conducted using MEDLINE; Embase; Ovid IPA; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials: Issue 2 of 12, February 2018; NHS Economic Evaluation Database: Issue 2 of 4, April 2015; Clarivate Analytics WOS Science Citation Index Expanded (1990-2018); EBSCOhost CINAHL Plus With Full Text (1937-2018); Elsevier Scopus; FirstSearch OAIster; AHRQ PCMH Citations Collection; ClinicalTrials.gov; and HSRProj.Study selectionStudies needed to evaluate the association of ICP (≥3 professions) with HbA1c, SBP, or DBP levels in adults with diabetes and/or hypertension receiving primary care. A dual review was performed for screening and selection.Data extraction and synthesisThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guideline for data abstractions and Cochrane Collaboration recommendations for bias assessment. Two dual review teams conducted independent data extraction with consensus. Data were pooled using a random-effects model for meta-analyses and forest plots constructed to report standardized mean differences (SMDs). For high heterogeneity (I2), data were stratified by baseline level and by study design.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes included HbA1c, SBP, and DBP levels as determined before data collection.ResultsA total of 3543 titles or abstracts were screened; 170 abstracts or full texts were reviewed. Of 50 articles in the systematic review, 39 (15 randomized clinical trials [RCTs], 24 non-RCTs) were included in the meta-analyses of HbA1c (n = 34), SBP (n = 25), and DBP (n = 24). The sample size ranged from 40 to 20 524, and mean age ranged from 51 to 70 years, with 0% to 100% participants being male. Varied ICP features were reported. The SMD varied by baseline HbA1c, although all SMDs significantly favored ICP (HbA1c <8, SMD = -0.13; P < .001; HbA1c ≥8 to < 9, SMD = -0.24; P = .007; and HbA1c ≥9, SMD = -0.60; P < .001). The SMD for SBP and DBP were -0.31 (95% CI, -0.46 to -0.17); P < .001 and -0.28 (95% CI, -0.42 to -0.14); P < .001, respectively, with effect sizes not associated with baseline levels. Overall I2 was greater than 80% for all outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that ICP was associated with reductions in HbA1c regardless of baseline levels as well as with reduced SBP and DBP. However, the greatest reductions were found with HbA1c levels of 9 or higher. The implementation of ICP in primary care may be associated with improvements in patient outcomes in diabetes and hypertension.

Project description:ContextInteprofessional collaboration (IPC) between biomedically trained doctors (BMD) and traditional, complementary and alternative medicine practitioners (TCAMP) is an essential element in the development of successful integrative healthcare (IHC) services. This systematic review aims to identify organizational strategies that would facilitate this process.MethodsWe searched 4 international databases for qualitative studies on the theme of BMD-TCAMP IPC, supplemented with a purposive search of 31 health services and TCAM journals. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using published checklist. Results of each included study were synthesized using a framework approach, with reference to the Structuration Model of Collaboration.FindingsThirty-seven studies of acceptable quality were included. The main driver for developing integrative healthcare was the demand for holistic care from patients. Integration can best be led by those trained in both paradigms. Bridge-building activities, positive promotion of partnership and co-location of practices are also beneficial for creating bonding between team members. In order to empower the participation of TCAMP, the perceived power differentials need to be reduced. Also, resources should be committed to supporting team building, collaborative initiatives and greater patient access. Leadership and funding from central authorities are needed to promote the use of condition-specific referral protocols and shared electronic health records. More mature IHC programs usually formalize their evaluation process around outcomes that are recognized both by BMD and TCAMP.ConclusionsThe major themes emerging from our review suggest that successful collaborative relationships between BMD and TCAMP are similar to those between other health professionals, and interventions which improve the effectiveness of joint working in other healthcare teams with may well be transferable to promote better partnership between the paradigms. However, striking a balance between the different practices and preserving the epistemological stance of TCAM will remain the greatest challenge in successful integration.