Dataset Information

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes: a secondary data analysis based on large scale survey data.

ABSTRACT:

Background

While interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is widely considered a key element of comprehensive patient treatment, evidence focusing on its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between employee-rated IPC and PROs in a clinical inpatient setting.

Methods

We conducted a secondary data analysis of the entire patient and employee reported data collected by the Picker Institute Germany in cross-sectional surveys between 2003 and 2016. Individual patient data from departments within hospitals was matched with employee survey data from within 2 years of treatment at the department-level. Items assessing employee-rated IPC (independent variables) were included in Principal Component Analysis (PCA). All questions assessing PROs (overall satisfaction, less discomforts, complications, treatment success, willingness to recommend) served as main dependent variables in ordered logistic regression analyses. Results were adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing as well as patients' and employees' gender, age, and education.

Results

The data set resulted in 6154 patients from 19 hospitals respective 103 unique departments. The PCA revealed three principal components (department-specific IPC, interprofessional organization, and overall IPC), explaining 67% of the total variance. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy was .830 and Bartlett's test of sphericity highly significant (p < 0.001). An increase of 1 SD in department-specific IPC was associated with a statistically significant chance of a higher (i.e., better) PRO-rating about complications after discharge (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.13, p = 0.029). However, no further associations were found. Exploratory analyses revealed positive coefficients of department-specific IPC on all PROs for patients which were treated in surgical or internal medicine departments, whereas results were ambiguous for pediatric patients.

Conclusions

The association between department-level IPC and patient-level PROs remains - as documented in previous literature - unclear and results are of marginal effect sizes. Future studies should keep in mind the different types of IPC, their specific characteristics and possible effect mechanisms.

Trial registration

Study registration: Open Science Framework (DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/2NYAX ); Date of registration: 09 November 2021.

SUBMITTER: Kaiser L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9809039 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes: a secondary data analysis based on large scale survey data.

Kaiser Laura L Neugebauer Edmund A M EAM Pieper Dawid D

BMC health services research 20230103 1

<h4>Background</h4>While interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is widely considered a key element of comprehensive patient treatment, evidence focusing on its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is inconclusive. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between employee-rated IPC and PROs in a clinical inpatient setting.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a secondary data analysis of the entire patient and employee reported data collected by the Picker Institute Germany in cross-s ...[more]

PMID: 36597063

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

Dataset Information

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes: a secondary data analysis based on large scale survey data.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes: a secondary data analysis based on large scale survey data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets