Boundary-work research has extensively explored how professionals engage in boundary work to protect or expand their professional boundaries in interprofessional collaboration (IPC). Yet professionals’ contextual constraints in everyday work, such as time pressure or legal restrictions, often result in competing interests of the professionals involved in IPC, prompting them to engage in boundary work to limit—instead of protect or expand—their boundaries. Our empirical analysis uses comprehensive qualitative data on IPC in Germany between self-employed general practitioners (GPs) and registered nurses employed in nursing homes in which GPs’ efficiency interests compete with nurses’ safeguarding interests, leading both professionals to engage in boundary-work efforts to limit their boundaries. Our findings provide a comprehensive understanding and framework of professionals’ boundary work, showing that individual GPs and nurses typically hold a portfolio of various defending and accommodating micro-strategies. Based on our first-order findings, we identify how different sources of power enable particular micro-strategies and explore how the choice of micro-strategies depends on different forms of trust in the collaborating partner. Lastly, we outline interactions of micro-strategies, illustrating how the outcomes of professionals’ bilateral boundary work depend on the sequence of these strategies.
Background
To improve interprofessional collaboration between registered nurses (RNs) and general practitioners (GPs) for nursing home residents (NHRs), the interprof ACT intervention package was developed. This complex intervention includes six components (e.g., shared goal setting, standardized procedures for GPs’ nursing home visits) that can be locally adapted. The cluster-randomized interprof ACT trial evaluates the effects of this intervention on the cumulative incidence of hospital admissions (primary outcome) and secondary outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stays, utilization of emergency care services, and quality of life) within 12 months. It also includes a process evaluation which is subject of this protocol. The objectives of this evaluation are to assess the implementation of the interprof ACT intervention package and downstream effects on nurse–physician collaboration as well as preconditions and prospects for successive implementation into routine care.
Methods
This study uses a mixed methods triangulation design involving all 34 participating nursing homes (clusters). The quantitative part comprises paper-based surveys among RNs, GPs, NHRs, and nursing home directors at baseline and 12 months. In the intervention group (17 clusters), data on the implementation of preplanned implementation strategies (training and supervision of nominated IPAVs, interprofessional kick-off meetings) and local implementation activities will be recorded. Major outcome domains are the dose, reach and fidelity of the implementation of the intervention package, changes in interprofessional collaboration, and contextual factors. The qualitative part will be conducted in a subsample of 8 nursing homes (4 per study group) and includes repeated non-participating observations and semistructured interviews on the interaction between involved health professionals and their work processes. Quantitative and qualitative data will be descriptively analyzed and then triangulated by means of joint displays and mixed methods informed regression models.
Discussion
By integrating a variety of qualitative and quantitative data sources, this process evaluation will allow comprehensive assessment of the implementation of the interprof ACT intervention package, the changes induced in interprofessional collaboration, and the influence of contextual factors. These data will reveal expected and unexpected changes in the procedures of interprofessional care delivery and thus facilitate accurate conclusions for the further design of routine care services for NHRs.
Trial registration
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03426475. Registered on 07/02/2018.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.