Search

Objective: To compare four health professions' attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and their evaluations of a programme aimed at enhancing IPC across a health system., Design: Questionnaire survey., Setting: Australian Capital Territory health services., Participants: Sample of medical (38), nursing (198), allied health (152) and administrative (30) staff., Intervention: s) A 4-year action research project to improve IPC., Main Outcome Measure: Questionnaire evaluating the project and responses to the 'Attitudes toward Health Care Teams' and 'Readiness for Interprofessional Learning' scales., Results: Significant professional differences occurred in 90% of the evaluation items. Doctors were the least and administrative staff most likely to agree project aims had been met. Nurses made more favourable assessments than did allied health staff. Doctors made the most negative assessments and allied health staff the most neutral ratings. Improved interprofessional sharing of knowledge, teamwork and patient care were among the goals held to have been most achieved. Reduction in interprofessional rivalry and improved trust and communication were least achieved. Average assessment of individual goals being met was agree (31.9%), neutral (56.9%) and disagree (11.2%). On the two attitude scales, allied health professionals were most supportive of IPC, followed by nurses, administrators and doctors., Conclusions: Although overall attitudes towards IPC were favourable, only a third of participants reported that project goals had been achieved indicating the difficulties of implementing systems change. The response profiles of the professions differed. As in the previous research, doctors were least likely to hold favourable attitudes towards or endorse benefits from social or structural interventions in health care.

Background: A four-year action research study was conducted across the Australian Capital Territory health system to strengthen interprofessional collaboration (IPC) though multiple intervention activities., Methods: We developed 272 substantial IPC intervention activities involving 2,407 face-to-face encounters with health system personnel. Staff attitudes toward IPC were surveyed yearly using Heinemann et al's Attitudes toward Health Care Teams and Parsell and Bligh's Readiness for Interprofessional Learning scales (RIPLS). At study's end staff assessed whether project goals were achieved., Results: Of the improvement projects, 76 exhibited progress, and 57 made considerable gains in IPC. Educational workshops and feedback sessions were well received and stimulated interprofessional activities. Over time staff scores on Heinemann's Quality of Interprofessional Care subscale did not change significantly and scores on the Doctor Centrality subscale increased, contrary to predictions. Scores on the RIPLS subscales of Teamwork & Collaboration and Professional Identity did not alter. On average for the assessment items 33% of staff agreed that goals had been achieved, 10% disagreed, and 57% checked neutral. There was most agreement that the study had resulted in increased sharing of knowledge between professions and improved quality of patient care, and least agreement that between-professional rivalries had lessened and communication and trust between professions improved., Conclusions: Our longitudinal interventional study of IPC involving multiple activities supporting increased IPC achieved many project-specific goals. However, improvements in attitudes over time were not demonstrated and neutral assessments predominated, highlighting the difficulties faced by studies targeting change at the systems level and over extended periods.

Background: Inter-professional learning (IPL) and inter-professional practice (IPP) are thought to be critical determinants of effective care, improved quality and safety and enhanced provider morale, yet few empirical studies have demonstrated this. Whole-of-system research is even less prevalent. We aim to provide a four year, multi-method, multi-collaborator action research program of IPL and IPP in defined, bounded health and education systems located in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The project is funded by the Australian Research Council under its industry Linkage Program., Methods/design: The program of research will examine in four inter-related, prospective studies, progress with IPL and IPP across tertiary education providers, professional education, regulatory and registration bodies, the ACT health system's streams of care activities and teams, units and wards of the provider facilities of the ACT health system. One key focus will be on push-pull mechanisms, ie, how the education sector creates student-enabled IPP and the health sector demands IPL-oriented practitioners. The studies will examine four research aims and meet 20 research project objectives in a comprehensive evaluation of ongoing progress with IPL and IPP., Discussion: IPP and IPL are said to be cornerstones of health system reforms. We will measure progress across an entire health system and the clinical and professional education systems that feed into it. The value of multi-methods, partnership research and a bi-directional push-pull model of IPL and IPP will be tested. Widespread dissemination of results to practitioners, policymakers, managers and researchers will be a key project goal.