Search

Introduction While there has been strong emphasis on enhancing interprofessional education and interprofessional care in the published literature, there is relatively little literature focused on advancing interprofessional research. In extrapolating from the current frameworks of interprofessional collaboration (IPC), it becomes clear that the core competencies of IPC are transferable to research teams. The aim of this paper is to present our experience of an international research team framed within core competencies for IPC. Methods A simplified narrative inquiry approach was used to share the experience of an international research team framed within six core competencies of IPC. Results and discussion By way of our international research collaboration, we demonstrate the translation of key core competencies for IPC. We share key learnings and mitigation strategies for the successful outcomes of the research team. Conclusion To embark on a successful international research collaboration requires integrating IPC core competencies across the entire research continuum. In addition to the core competencies of collaboration, enablers to success also include digital collaborative forums, existing professional relationships and research projects that offer global meaning and value.

Background Computed tomography (CT) contributes to 60% of the collective dose in medical imaging. Literature has demonstrated that patient dose varies across regions and countries. Establishing diagnostic reference levels (DRLs) contributes to the optimization of clinical practices and radiation protection. Purpose To survey the dose indices (CTDIvol and dose-length product) for frequently performed CT examinations from the chosen hospitals in Norway and Canada and to determine local DRLs (LDRLs) based on the collected data. Material and Methods The survey included eight scanners from two Norwegian hospitals and four scanners from four Canadian hospitals. Dosimetry data were collected for the following routine CT examinations: head, contrast-enhanced thorax, and abdomen and pelvis. Overall 480 adult average-sized patients from Norway and 360 from Canada were included in the survey. The LDRLs were determined as the 75th percentile of distributions of median values of dose indicators from different CT scanners. The differences in dose between scanners were determined using single-factor ANOVA. Results The LDRLs determined in Norway were higher overall than in Canada. The obtained values were compared to the national DRLs. The dose from several scanners in Norway exceeded national Norwegian DRLs, while Canadian LDRLs were below the Canadian reference levels. The differences between the means of the dose distributions from each scanner were statistically significant ( p < 0.05) for all examinations with exception of identical scanners located in the same hospital and using the same protocols. Conclusion Observed dose variations even in the same hospital, or from the same scanner model confirmed the need for CT protocol optimization.