Care complexity, perceptions of complexity and preferences for interprofessional collaboration: an analysis of relationships and social networks in paediatrics
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: van Klaveren L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10962203 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:The very notion of social network implies that linked individuals interact repeatedly with each other. This notion allows them not only to learn successful strategies and adapt to them, but also to condition their own behavior on the behavior of others, in a strategic forward looking manner. Game theory of repeated games shows that these circumstances are conducive to the emergence of collaboration in simple games of two players. We investigate the extension of this concept to the case where players are engaged in a local contribution game and show that rationality and credibility of threats identify a class of Nash equilibria--that we call "collaborative equilibria"--that have a precise interpretation in terms of subgraphs of the social network. For large network games, the number of such equilibria is exponentially large in the number of players. When incentives to defect are small, equilibria are supported by local structures whereas when incentives exceed a threshold they acquire a nonlocal nature, which requires a "critical mass" of more than a given fraction of the players to collaborate. Therefore, when incentives are high, an individual deviation typically causes the collapse of collaboration across the whole system. At the same time, higher incentives to defect typically support equilibria with a higher density of collaborators. The resulting picture conforms with several results in sociology and in the experimental literature on game theory, such as the prevalence of collaboration in denser groups and in the structural hubs of sparse networks.
| S-EPMC3311355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop and validate an interprofessional collaboration competency scale for children with medical complexity (ICC-CMC). These children have the most complex healthcare needs, complicated chronic conditions, severe functional limitations and often need a considerable amount of healthcare resources.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingThe self-administered ICC-CMC questionnaire was developed based on a literature review and 12 expert interviews.ParticipantsParticipants were 2347 interprofessionals from the health, medical, welfare and education fields in seven prefectures in Japan.Main outcome measuresWe used Cronbach's alpha values to assess the internal consistency of the scale. Construct validity was confirmed with confirmatory factor analysis, and an existing scale was administered to assess criterion-related validity.ResultsIn total, 378 professionals provided valid responses. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses identified 12 items on three factors: 'sharing needs assessment skills', 'resource development skills' and 'creative networking skills'. The final model showed good fit on four indices (eg, goodness of fit index: 0.925). The Cronbach's alpha for the entire scale was 0.93 and was above 0.80 for each factor. The correlation coefficient between the existing scale and the ICC-CMC was 0.72 (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe ICC-CMC demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and validity. The scale has potential use in advancing professionals' individual practice and team performance in interprofessional collaboration. In addition, the ICC-CMC has the potential of improving satisfaction and outcomes for children with medical complexity and their families.
| S-EPMC6020942 | 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:Interprofessional education (IPE) is the basis for interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in health care systems. It has beneficial effects for both patients and health care professionals. IPC is paramount for adequate care of patients and their families, especially in pediatrics. To determine the attitudes of medical doctors (n=121), nurses (n=15), psychologists (n=14), and social workers (n=19) toward IPE and IPC in a tertiary pediatric university teaching hospital, as well as the inpatient and outpatient settings in pediatrics, we developed a questionnaire with 21 items in four categories based on established questionnaires. All participants worked as part of interprofessional teams, and the overwhelming majority valued IPC highly. Most competencies important for IPC were acquired on the job. There was a substantial lack of interprofessional education, especially for medical doctors and psychologists. IPE still needs to be established as part of the undergraduate curriculum at German universities.
| S-EPMC4895846 | biostudies-literature
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:IntroductionFor many training programs, including hematology, there are limited structured opportunities to practice collaboration as a competency. Training is often limited to ad hoc interactions during clinical rotations. Accordingly, there is further need for immersive and standardized collaboration educational programs. This pilot study explored simulation for developing and assessing collaboration competency among hematology residents.MethodsTwo standardized simulation center scenarios were developed that required residents to work in interprofessional teams. The objectives were to develop collaboration competence and confidence through experiential learning and facilitated reflection. Team members included education and simulation experts as well as hematology nurses as embedded participants. Case 1 presented a 72-year-old male with stage 4 lymphoma experiencing shortness of breath during a rituximab infusion. Case 2 presented a 68-year-old male who suffered a provoked pulmonary embolism. Both cases utilized a simulated clinic space. Pre, post, and 3-month questionnaires (self-assessed collaboration competency and simulation evaluation) were completed. Each session included structured debriefing with facilitated reflection focused on collaboration.ResultsSeven senior hematology subspecialty residents participated. Despite residents entering the simulation cases with confidence in collaboration, higher collaboration confidence ratings were observed on postsimulation questionnaires (8.2 vs. 7.6 on a 10-point Likert scale). Residents demonstrated awareness of appropriate collaboration skills, but at times failed to implement knowledge into action. Facilitated reflection during the debrief helped residents critique their collaboration performance and develop improvement plans.DiscussionSimulation is a promising tool for teaching and assessing collaboration within hematology training.
| S-EPMC7780739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective interprofessional collaboration requires that team members share common perceptions and expectations of each other's roles.ObjectiveDescribe and compare residents' and nurses' perceptions and expectations of their own and each other's professional roles in the context of an Internal Medicine ward.MethodsA convenience sample of 14 residents and 14 nurses volunteers from the General Internal Medicine Division at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, were interviewed to explore their perceptions and expectations of residents' and nurses' professional roles, for their own and the other profession. Interviews were analysed using thematic content analysis. The same respondents also filled a questionnaire asking their own intended actions and the expected actions from the other professional in response to 11 clinical scenarios.ResultsThree main themes emerged from the interviews: patient management, clinical reasoning and decision-making processes, and roles in the team. Nurses and residents shared general perceptions about patient management. However, there was a lack of shared perceptions and expectations regarding nurses' autonomy in patient management, nurses' participation in the decision-making process, professional interdependence, and residents' implication in teamwork. Results from the clinical scenarios showed that nurses' intended actions differed from residents' expectations mainly regarding autonomy in patient management. Correlation between residents' expectations and nurses' intended actions was 0.56 (p=0.08), while correlation between nurses' expectations and residents' intended actions was 0.80 (p<0.001).ConclusionsThere are discordant perceptions and unmet expectations among nurses and residents about each other's roles, including several aspects related to the decision-making process. Interprofessional education should foster a shared vision of each other's roles and clarify the boundaries of autonomy of each profession.
| S-EPMC3585159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionInterprofessional collaboration of physicians and midwives is essential for appropriate and safe care of pregnant and parturient women as well as their newborns. The complexity of woman-centered care settings requires the continuous exchange of information and the coordinated implementation of multi-and interprofessional care concepts. To analyze the midwives' perspective on the multi-and interprofessional care process during pregnancy, birth and postpartum period, we aimed to adapt and psychometrically evaluate the Interprofessional Collaboration Scale (ICS).MethodsThe ICS (13 items) was answered by 299 midwives for (i) prenatal and postpartum care as well as (ii) perinatal care. Three items on equitable communication (EC) identified in qualitative interviews with N = 6 midwives were added as further aspects of quality in collaborative midwifery care. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test competing theoretically hypothesized factorial model structures, including both care settings simultaneously, i.e., birth and prenatal/postpartum.ResultsA two-dimensional structure assuming the 13 original ICS items and the 3 items on EC as psychometric distinct item groups accounts for the data best. After deleting 5 ICS items with insufficient indicator reliability, a very good-fitting model structure was obtained for both prenatal/postpartum as well as perinatal care: χ2df = 192 = 226.35, p = 0.045, CFI = 0.991, RMSEA = 0.025 (90%CI: [0.004; 0.037]). Both the reduced ICS-R and the EC scale (standardized response mean = 0.579/1.401) indicate significantly higher interprofessional collaboration in the birth setting. Responsibility in consulting, attitudes toward obstetric care and frequency of collaboration with other professional groups proved to be associated with the ICS-R and EC scale as expected.DiscussionFor the adapted ICS-R and the EC scale a good construct validity could be confirmed. Thus, the scales can be recommended as a promising assessment for recording the collaboration of midwives with physicians working in obstetric care from the perspective of midwives. The instrument provides a validated assessment basis in midwifery and obstetric care to identify potentially divergent perspectives within interprofessional care teams in woman's centered care.
| S-EPMC10240080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFrailty and multimorbidity are common among patients in geriatric rehabilitation care (GRC). Proper care of these patients involves multiple professionals which requires optimal interprofessional collaboration to provide the best possible support. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) goes beyond multi-professional collaboration. It requires professionals to think beyond the expertise of their own discipline and work on joint outcomes in which the patient is actively involved. This study describes the development of the GRC teams of an elderly care organization towards the IPC.MethodsMixed method pre-post study of 15 months. The interprofessional training program comprised team trainings, webinars, and online team sessions. Data was aggregated by administering the Extended Professional Identity Scale (EPIS) and QuickScan Interprofessional Collaboration (QS) measurements to GRC staff and by observations of the multi-professional team consultation (MPC) meetings of six GRC teams of an organization for elderly care in Drachten and Dokkum in the Netherlands. ADL independence (Barthel Index) and number of inpatient days were analyzed before and after the project.ResultsPretest healthcare professional response was 106, patients for analyses was 181; posttest response was 84, patients was 170. The EPIS shows improvement on "interprofessional belonging" (P = .001, 95%CI: 0.57-2.21), "interprofessional commitment" (P = .027, 95%CI: 0.12-1.90), and overall "interprofessional identity" (P = .013, 95%CI: 0.62 - 5.20). On the QS, all domains improved; "shared values" (P = .009, 95%CI: 0.07 - 0.47), "context" (P = .005, 95%CI: 0.08 - 0.44), "structure & organization" (P = .001, 95%CI: 0.14 - 0.56), "group dynamics & interaction" (P < .001, 95%CI: 0.18 - 0.58), and "entrepreneurship & management" (P = .039, 95%CI: 0.01 - 0.48). A qualitative analysis of the reflection responses and MPC observations indicate a shift from multi-professional to more IPC. Differences in ADL over time were not statistically significant. The mean number of inpatient days was reduced by 11.8 (P < .001, 95%CI: -17.34 - - 6.31) days.ConclusionsWithin the GRC teams, there was a shift observed to more IPC and better representation of the patient's wishes and needs. ADL independence did not change, yet we found a statistically significant decrease in the number of inpatient days. The basis for IPC was well established, however, it remains necessary that the teams continue to develop and invest in the collaboration with each other and the patient to further improve it.
| S-EPMC10478267 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the "gold standard" of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care.MethodsWe systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and Embase) for studies published between 1997 and 2021. Additional studies were identified through citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (NRS). The included controlled before-and-after study (CBA) was assessed using both the ROBINS-I and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) quality criteria. Results were synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of extracted data.ResultsThe search yielded 10,213 records, from which 22 studies (16 RCTs, five NRS, and one CBA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all but five studies, RoB was assessed as being high (RoB 2) resp. critical or serious (ROBINS-I). Within these 22 studies, nine inductively derived outcomes were assessed: (i) quality of life, (ii) coping, (iii) functional ability and health status, (iv) psychiatric morbidity, (v) pain, (vi) managing one's own health care, (vii) treatment success, (viii) satisfaction, and (ix) therapeutic relationship. While some studies do not report effect estimates, and some of the reported effects appear to be imprecisely estimated, the overall results indicate that IPC may affect PRO positively across all outcomes.ConclusionsDue to high clinical heterogeneity and high RoB, the question whether IPC affects PRO cannot be answered conclusively. Methodically rigorous studies are needed in order to answer the question of effectiveness of IPC.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017073900.
| S-EPMC9375378 | biostudies-literature