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: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:BackgroundChronic conditions can lead to physical, cognitive and social decline; thus, increasing an individual's dependence on family who assist with activities of daily living. Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), involving two or more health professionals working with the patient and their family, is one model of care for the high-quality management of individuals with chronic conditions in primary care. Nevertheless, family carers have reported a disconnect between themselves and healthcare providers in previous research. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of family carers for individuals with chronic conditions, regarding their involvement in IPCP.MethodsAspects of constructivist grounded theory methodology were used. Family carers of individuals with chronic conditions were invited to participate in a one-on-one, semistructured interview about their experiences with IPCP in the care of their loved one. Interview transcripts were analysed using Charmaz's four-step iterative process: (1) line-by-line coding, (2) focused coding, (3) categorisation of codes and (4) potential theme and subtheme development with memo writing to support each phase of analysis. The research team collaborated on reflexivity exercises, the conceptualisation of categories and the development of themes.ResultsConstructivist data analysis of interviews (average 40 min) with 10 family carers resulted in two themes. (1) Stepping in for my loved one represents the notion that carers take on external roles on behalf of their loved ones (subthemes: working with interprofessional teams, supporting independence and learning as I go). (2) Taking on the carer role, represents the internal factors that influence the external roles described in theme 1 (subthemes: feeling obligated to be involved and changing relationship dynamics).ConclusionThis study outlines the external actions and internal influences on family carer involvement in an interprofessional team. The required knowledge and support to care for their loved ones is currently learned in an ad hoc manner, and carers' resources should be better promoted by health professionals. Additionally, the relationship dynamics between a carer and their loved one change as the carer becomes more involved in IPCP and influences how and the extent health professionals involve family carers.Patient or public contributionCarers were the study population involved in this qualitative study. Patient advocates who have chronic conditions, and are informal family carers, were involved in the creation and design of this study, including a review of the research question, participant information sheet and the interview guide.

Project description:IntroductionTeam-based care has been integrated into primary care (PC) across Canada because it improves patient safety, effectiveness, efficiency, person-centredness, and equity. However, this integration in and of itself may not lead to improved patient care without effective interpersonal relationships amongst team members. Currently, teams have few tools to guide the development of collaborative relationships. The Interprofessional Collaborative Relationship-building Model (ICRB) was developed to be a tool for understanding the stages of development of the interprofessional team's relationship-building.PurposeThis qualitative secondary data analysis illuminates a PC team's experiences of their developing interprofessional relationships with occupational therapists and physical therapists who joined the PC team.MethodEleven team member interviews of one primary care team from a family medicine teaching clinic affiliated with a training university and the health region in central Canada were analyzed using secondary data analysis. The team included family physicians (n = 4), nurses (n = 2), a social worker (n = 1), a mental health counselor (n = 1), occupational therapists (n = 2), and a physical therapist (n = 1). We used the ICRB for directed content analysis using the phased approach that includes the three main steps of data preparation, data organization and data presentation.ResultsThis team experienced the ICRB stages of Looking For Help, Fitting-In, and Growing Reciprocity thereby learning about one another to better understand what OT and PT may bring to the PC setting. However, contrary to the ICRB, co-location, was the context within which the collaborative relationship-building took place rather than a distinct developmental stage. Although team members did experience some level of Growing Reciprocity, this developing team had not yet established collaborative leadership processes. As the ICRB originally posited, communication and patient focus facilitated all stages of the relationship-building process and helped the team develop shared values and role clarity that establish how different team members contribute to improving quality care.ConclusionsThe context of co-location with a patient focus and open communication facilitated the team's development with the occupational therapists and physical therapist. Collaborative leadership is a worthy goal for future research and clinical focus as it has implications for improving overall patient quality care and team member work satisfaction.

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.