Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Community health workers (CHWs) can bridge the gap between health and social services and the communities they serve. CHWs can work collaboratively with healthcare professionals, such as pharmacists, in addressing peoples' social determinants of health. However, little is known about how CHWs and pharmacists collaborate. We aimed to explore the interprofessional collaboration between pharmacists and CHWs in Australia and New Zealand and identify the challenges and strategies in their collaborative practice. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with pharmacists and CHWs in Australia and New Zealand, to explore (i) CHW‐pharmacist interprofessional collaboration experiences, (ii) how pharmacists perceived CHWs' roles and vice‐versa, (iii), challenges to collaborative practices and (iv) strategies to foster their collaboration. Interviews took around half‐an‐hour and were audio‐recorded, transcribed verbatim, and inductively thematically analysed. Results Twenty‐nine participants (16 pharmacists and 13 CHWs) were interviewed, 19 worked in Australia and 10 in New Zealand. Participants reported that CHWs connected the patient and the pharmacist and helped bridge cultural gaps, shared patient‐related information with the pharmacist, supported patient medication management and adherence, and referred patients to pharmacists. CHWs helped patients to take up pharmacy services and reinforced pharmacists' recommendations. There was a lack of clarity regarding each other's role, but pharmacists and CHWs acknowledged the benefit of each other's roles. Key challenges to collaborative practices were poor communication between CHWs and pharmacists, and lack of guidelines on the collaborative practices. Strategies to promote collaboration included clarification of their roles, improving the working relationship and knowledge of the mutual benefits of collaboration. Conclusions The study identified some collaborative practices between CHWs and pharmacists. However, challenges remain, including a lack of clarity regarding CHWs' roles by pharmacists. Future research should focus on improving knowledge of the mutual benefits of collaboration, and codesigning a CHW‐pharmacist collaborative intervention with guidelines to standardise and foster collaboration. Patient or Public Contribution Patients, service users, care‐givers, people with lived experience or members of the public were not involved in the study design or conduct of study, analysis or interpretation of the data or in preparation of the manuscript.

Background Belgian primary care is facing significant challenges due to increasing healthcare demands and an overall decline in the workforce. Most general practitioners (GPs) work solo or in mono-disciplinary practices, leading to suboptimal outcomes in areas such as preventive care and health promotion. In response, the Ministry of Health introduced a “New-Deal” for GPs, which includes additional funding to support innovative practice organisation models. A think tank of GP representatives was established to guide the initiative, with input from practising GPs gathered for further insight. This study aims to identify the professionals needed to support GPs in daily practice, define their roles, and explore the conditions necessary for integrating them into the GP-centred model of care. Methods Eleven focus groups were conducted with 122 GPs, ensuring geographical and linguistic diversity across Belgium. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure a diverse range of organisational models across the country. A structured focus group guide was designed, incorporating three scenarios to examine tasks commonly encountered in GP practices. Data analysis was conducted using a codebook developed through an inductive approach. Results GPs expressed a preference for relatively small-scale teams, generally consisting of nurses and receptionists. The role of a practice assistant was more ambiguously defined, positioned between clinical and administrative responsibilities. Key tools for effective team integration included co-location, well-defined protocols, a shared electronic health record, care coordination, and unified logistical management, all of which are critical to fostering multidisciplinary collaboration. Conclusions This study explores Belgian GPs' preferences for integrating healthcare professionals into their practices, with team composition adjusted to workload and patient needs. However, the traditional autonomy of practice design may hinder change. Future research is needed to refine financial models and integration tools for collaborative care.

Background Comprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care. Methods The JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care. Results Of the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals’ self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study. Conclusions Based on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) for older patient care among family physicians, dentists, therapists, nutritionists, nurses, and pharmacists in the rural hospital care of older patients could improve the hospital readmission rate. However, there is a lack of interventional studies on IPC for improving the readmission rate among Japanese older patients in rural hospitals. This quasi-experimental study was performed on patients >65 years who were discharged from a rural community hospital. The intervention was IPC implementation with effective information sharing and comprehensive management of older patients’ conditions for effective discharge and readmission prevention; implementation started on 1 April 2021. The study lasted 2 years, from 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022 for the intervention group and from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021 for the comparison group. The average participant age was 79.86 (standard deviation = 15.38) years and the proportion of men was 45.0%. The Cox hazard model revealed that IPC intervention could reduce the readmission rate after adjustment for sex, serum albumin, polypharmacy, dependent condition, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score (hazard ratio = 0.66, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.81). Rural IPC intervention can improve inpatient care for older patients and decrease readmission rates. Thus, for effective rural IPC interventions, family physicians in hospitals should proactively collaborate with various medical professionals to improve inpatient health outcomes.

Background The increasingly complex patient care in the twenty-first century is delivered by interprofessional health care teams. Interprofessional collaboration can be taught during interprofessional education. However, whether a long-term change in collaborative competencies can be achieved by interprofessional education has not been studied sufficiently. Our research questions were: How does motivation for interprofessional collaboration and interprofessional collaborative skills change up to one year after an interprofessional educational intervention? How are they related to each other? Methods During a one-year period, undergraduate medical and nursing students attended four interprofessional (intervention) or uniprofessional (control group) education sessions. Self-determination Theory was used as the theoretical framework. Autonomous and controlled motivation scores for interprofessional collaboration were calculated using the Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire, before (T1), directly after (T2) and one year post-intervention (T3). At T3, the students also filled out the Interprofessional Collaborative Competencies Attainment Survey (ICCAS), which measured the perceived attainment of collaborative competencies by a retrospective pre-test/post-test design. We used linear mixed effects models to analyse the motivation scores and linear regression for the relation between motivation and competence. Results In the interprofessional group, autonomous motivation scores of the participants were significantly lower at T2 vs. T1. Controlled motivation scores were significantly higher at T3 vs. T1. Controlled motivation scores for T2 were significantly higher in the uniprofessional group than in the interprofessional group. Perceived competence was related to higher autonomous motivation scores. At T3 the interprofessional collaborative competencies seemed to have grown more among students in the interprofessional group. Conclusions The perceived growth in interprofessional collaboration competence lasted at least up to one year after the intervention, and was measurable with the ICCAS. The growth was significantly more in the IPE students than in the UPE students. The few differences found in motivation scores for interprofessional collaboration were probably caused by an imbalance of nursing versus medical students over the different time points. This finding indicates that classroom based IPE can contribute to interprofessional collaboration skills of nursing and medical students at least up to one year after an intervention.

Background Interprofessional education (IPE) is a core element of many health professional education curricula. To date the focus of much research has been on student perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the learning experience. Little is known about the impact of early IPE experience on how students understand and learn about effective interprofessional teamwork. Methods This qualitative study involved first year university students enrolled in health professions degrees and investigated their descriptions of interprofessional teamwork through graphic elicitation and interviews. Participants were enrolled in a large-scale interprofessional unit (subject) in the university. Results The data were analysed through the lens of a tool that classifies dimensions of interprofessional activity. The findings indicated the majority of students had what was classified as a Stage 1 (or ‘nascent’) understanding of integration between work practices and a Stage 2 (or ‘emerging’) understanding of the dimensions of interprofessional teamwork which were commitment, identity, goals, roles and responsibilities, and interdependence. Conclusions Based on the findings, the stages for a learning trajectory for interprofessional education are proposed and each stage is mapped to dimensions of interprofessional activity. A number of pedagogical strategies are suggested in order to move students through this two-stage model of learning and ensure their readiness for interprofessional teamwork as health professionals.

Background In the context of increasingly intricate healthcare systems, professionals are compelled to collaborate within dynamically changing interprofessional teams. Moreover, they must adapt these collaborative processes to effectively and efficiently manage the evolving complexity of care needs. It remains unclear how professionals determine care complexity and relate this complexity to their preferences for interprofessional collaboration (IPC). This study investigated the relationships between care complexity, professionals’ perceived complexity and IPC preferences, and examined the variation in individual and team characteristics of IPC-practices across different levels of complexity in paediatric care. Methods In an online questionnaire, 123 healthcare professionals working at an academic tertiary children’s hospital scored their perceptions of complexity and preferences for IPC. They also selected family and various professions as members of the interprofessional (IP-) team based on thirteen patient cases. We employed conjoint analysis to systematically model the complexity of case descriptions across the five domains of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Additionally, we applied social network analysis to identify important professions, crucial connectors and influential professions in the IP-team, and to describe the cohesiveness of IP-teams. Results Modelled case complexity, professionals’ perceived complexity and IPC preferences were positively associated. We found large inter-individual variations in the degree of these associations. Social network analysis revealed that the importance and influence of professions was more equally distributed when case complexity increased. Depending on the context and complexity of the case, different professions (e.g. medical doctors, social professionals, extramural professionals) were considered to be more crucial connectors within the IP-team. Furthermore, team cohesion was positively associated with modelled and perceived care complexity. Conclusions In conclusion, our study contributes to the existing knowledge by integrating task-specific insights and broadening the use of conjoint and social network analysis in the context of IPC. The findings substantiate the contingency theory that relates characteristics of IPC to care complexity, offering quantified insights into how IP-teams adapt to situational needs. This understanding of relationships and variations within IPC holds crucial implications for designing targeted interventions in both clinical and health profession education contexts. Consequently, it contributes to advancements in healthcare systems.

Background Interprofessional collaboration is essential to maintain high-quality care in long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation. However, little is known regarding perceived factors influencing interprofessional collaboration by people involved in care. This concerns both long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation. Moreover, knowledge of using patient outcome measures to enhance interprofessional collaboration during multidisciplinary team meetings is insufficient. This study examined the perceived facilitators of and barriers to interprofessional collaboration in general and during multidisciplinary team meetings, specifically according to healthcare professionals, patients, and informal caregivers. Differences between long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation were also investigated. Finally, it was examined which patient outcome measures were used in multidisciplinary team meetings. Methods A constructivist qualitative study using 10 focus groups and 18 semi-structured interviews with 14 patients, 13 informal caregivers,10 managers, and 22 healthcare professionals from eight Dutch long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation facilities. A combined inductive and deductive approach to a thematic analysis was performed. Results The perceived influencing factors of interprofessional collaboration were classified into two general themes: (1) ‘Involvement of patient, informal caregiver, and healthcare professional’, categorised into: ‘participation of patients and informal caregivers’, ‘behaviour and attitude of team members’, ‘expectations of team members towards each other’, and ‘exchange of information, knowledge, and reciprocity in communication’; and (2) ‘A systematic approach to providing care for older people’, consisting of: ‘coordination of team procedures’, and ‘coordination of organisational procedures’. Also, one theme for multidisciplinary team meetings was identified: ‘Organised participation of patient, informal caregiver, and healthcare professional in multidisciplinary team meeting, categorised into: ‘team procedures’, ‘working systematically’, and ‘participation in multidisciplinary team meetings. Standardised patient outcome measures were scarcely used in multidisciplinary team meetings. Conclusion People involved in long-term care and geriatric rehabilitation indicated that, apart from working systematically, being involved in care and multidisciplinary team meetings are essential factors for interprofessional collaboration. These factors must be taken into consideration to provide valuable, high-quality care to older people residing in long-term care and geriatric. Trial registration Not applicable.

Interprofessional identity (IPI) development is considered essential in reducing incongruency and improving interprofessional collaboration. However, noticeable differences in conceptualizations are being put forward in the literature, hindering interpretation of research findings and translation into practice. Therefore, a Concept Analysis and Critical Interpretative Synthesis of empirical research articles were conducted to explore the assumptions and conceptions of IPI. Independent literature screening by two researchers led to the inclusion and extraction of 39 out of 1334 articles. Through critical analysis, higher order themes were constructed and translated to a synthesizing argument and a conceptual framework depicting what constitutes IPI (attributes), the boundary conditions (antecedents) and the outcomes (consequences) of its development. The attributes refer to both IPI’s structural properties and the core beliefs indicative of an interprofessional orientation. The antecedents inform us on the importance of IPI-fitting constructivist learning environments and intergroup leadership in enabling its development. This development may lead to several consequences with regard to professional wellbeing, team effectiveness and the quintuple aim. Given the educational orientation of this study, ways for facilitating and assessing the development of IPI among learners across the professional continuum have been proposed, although empirical research is needed to further validate links and mediating and moderating variables.

Aim: To document nursing students’ experiences of continuous participation in a clinical interprofessional education (IPE) program with the Faculty of Pharmacy of other universities in Japan, which had been incorporated into the existing practicum program, and consider how to develop a one-shot clinical IPE program. Methods: The study participants were two nursing students from a single-department college; they were participating in a clinical IPE program—the first IPE program they had ever participated in—during an area-based practicum in Year 3. Subsequently, in Year 4, a semi-structured interview was conducted, and these interview data were qualitatively and inductively analyzed. Results: Seven categories were identified, and it was found that through continuous participation in the IPE program, there was a change from “clinical IPE is stuck at the back of their mind as a bitter experience” to “the process of clinical IPE stimulates their maturity as a nursing student” and “cultivates attitudes necessary for cooperation”. Conclusion: Consecutive years of continuous clinical IPE helps students deepen their understanding of learning content by reducing the physical and mental burden of multidisciplinary cooperation and collaboration. For difficulties with regard to step-by-step IPE, it is suggested that one-shot clinical IPE can be conducted for the upper grades along with continuous reflection activities for teams and individuals.