Search

Background: Concern is growing over increased numbers of adverse events experienced by patients when admitted to acute care hospitals in Canada due to breakdowns in communication. The purpose of the Timely Open Communication for Patient Safety (TOC) project was to create a culture of patient safety through enhanced interprofessional communication by developing resources for caregivers and patients. Methods and Findings: The research was framed by a mixed-methods design that included pre- and post-surveys and focus groups, online educational modules, face-to-face activities, and the development of patient orientation materials. Three clinical sites participated in the study. The findings indicate that supporting healthcare teams to identify strengths, challenges, and future directions of communicating, clarifying roles, functioning, and collaborating, coupled with educational interventions that raise awareness of patient safety, may enhance patient safety. The study was limited by the absence of data regarding the incidence of adverse events during the research period. Conclusion: The data showed improvement in team members' perceptions of interprofessional collaborative practice within the participating Collaborative Learning Units (CLUs). If the CLU model of care is adopted within the healthcare system, the safety of patients/clients may improve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There has been tremendous pressure on Canada' s healthcare system to respond to the increasingly complex health needs of the population despite worsening constraints in financial and human resources. Interprofessional collaborative practice has been seen as an enabler for improving patient care and meeting the current demands on the healthcare system. Methods: The South Eastern Interprofessional Collaborative Learning Environment (SEIPCLE) project, funded by HealthForceOntario, focused on the development and evaluation of the collaborative practice care model in three clinical settings in Southeastern Ontario, Canada. The project was exploratory in nature and used a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests matched with non-equivalent control groups. Several different measures were used, including the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT), an Interprofessional Clinical Education Survey, and a Patient Participation Survey. Quantitative outcome measures were derived from these instruments using factor analysis, and analyzed using regression modelling with co-variates. Focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires provided qualitative data that was coded conceptually and used to complement the results of analyses using quantitative measures. Intervention teams participated in educational components that addressed identified weaknesses in their collaborative practice. Educational components included online modules, workshops, and real-time activities. Findings: Implementation of educational components in the clinical setting posed a number of challenges to reducing the exposure time for some of the intervention teams. Barriers to and enablers of the development of collaborative practice in the healthcare system were identified. Conclusion: Overall, all three intervention teams demonstrated an increase in perceived levels of collaborative practice. Although the results were not statistically significant, the effect, size, and magnitude of change were considered substantial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative practice is receiving increased attention as a model of healthcare delivery that positively influences the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care while improving the work environment of healthcare providers. The collaborative practice assessment tool (CPAT) was developed from the literature to enable interprofessional teams to assess their collaborative practice. The CPAT survey included 56 items across nine domains including: mission and goals; relationships; leadership; role responsibilities and autonomy; communication; decision-making and conflict management; community linkages and coordination; perceived effectiveness and patient involvement; in addition to three open-ended questions. The tool was developed for use in a variety of settings involving a diversity of healthcare providers with the aim of helping teams to identify professional development needs and corresponding educational interventions. The results of two pilot tests indicated that the CPAT is a valid and reliable tool for assessing levels of collaborative practice within teams. This article describes the development of the tool, the pilot testing and validation process, as well as limitations of the tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]