Search

Objective: Patient expectations in the Australian healthcare system are for coordinated, collaborative practice. There is a need for education institutions, health services, accreditation authorities, and consumers to work together to achieve this goal. As part of a larger body of work, we sought to understand how these stakeholders contribute to the development of collaborative healthcare practice. Method: Nineteen focus groups were conducted in 2022 with 84 participants consisting of education providers (n = 62), consumers (n = 10), representatives from the Health Profession's Education Standing Group (n = 8), and health service practitioners (n = 4). Framework analysis was initially undertaken to understand facilitators of, and barriers to, collaborative practice and learning. In a secondary analysis, the themes were re-organised according to the Bolman and Deal domains of organisational practice, to make explicit the structural, human resource, political, and symbolic factors deemed useful for re-imaging a process for learning about and incentivising collaborative practice. Results: There are multiple factors across healthcare settings that both facilitate and challenge the development of collaborative practice. Co-location of professions and participation in formal interprofessional processes such as team meetings and handovers facilitated learning collaborative practice, although traditional cultures which perpetuate siloed models of healthcare, power differentials between the professions, funding structures, and information sharing limited opportunities. The 'value' of collaborative practice was facilitated through both consistent curriculum messages throughout health professional courses and positive role modelling. Conclusions: Education institutions, health service practitioners, accreditation authorities, and consumers can work together to facilitate the development of collaborative practice through attention to policy and processes, curriculum activities, student participation, health service activities and practice, and resource allocation. What is known about the topic? Patients expect coordinated, collaborative practice in the Australian healthcare system. Health services, education institutions, and accreditation authorities must work together to achieve this goal. What does this paper add? While the value of collaborative practice is embedded through consistent curriculum messages and positive role modelling in health professional courses, accreditation authorities, education institutions, health service practitioners, and consumers need to work together to facilitate the development of collaborative practice through attention to policy and processes, curriculum activities, student participation, health service activities, and resource allocation. What are the implications for practitioners? Through working together on curriculum and health service activities and practice, health service providers, education institutions, and accreditation authorities can develop collaborative practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Australian Pharmacy Council (APC) is the national accreditation authority for pharmacy education and training in Australia. In 2020, APC published revised Accreditation Standards and a new Performance Outcomes Framework (POF). The POF details expected performance for pharmacy students at the point of graduation and for pharmacy graduates on completion of postgraduate training. The APC and the pharmacist regulator, the Pharmacy Board of Australia collaborated on a project to develop workplace‐based assessment (WBA) tools for use in assessing performance of pharmacy graduates in the postgraduate training period. The objectives of the project were to; identify and develop an initial suite of WBA tools; develop accompanying guidance and supporting documentation; seek feedback from stakeholders; and pilot the WBA tools in community and hospital settings. The WBA tools were developed through consultative process overseen by a group of education experts (a Technical Working Group) and a governance group. The latter comprising members from the Pharmacy Board and APC. The Technical Working Group agreed on the tools to develop based on an available Intern Year Assessment Blueprint and the tools were then drafted by a consultant. APC held consultative forums and a pilot study to gather feedback from intern pharmacists and preceptors. The project resulted in development of a suite of three types of WBA tools; Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), Case Based Discussions (CbD), and In Training Assessment (ITA) activities covering six areas of focus. All types of tools that were initially agreed upon were made available for use. The WBA tools address 15 performance outcomes in the POF. Future direction will involve further evaluation of the tools in diverse practice settings and expansion of the current suite of tools to cover additional performance outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]