Many primary care doctors possess a poor knowledge of PIP and are unaware of prescribing guidelines such as the Beers criteria. Our survey indicates that doctor usage of the Beers criteria might correlate with improved judgement in prescribing for the elderly. Most doctors report multiple barriers to appropriate prescribing in the elderly. Lack of formal education about prescribing guidelines was the only barrier that correlated with the doctors' level of training.

This study was designed to develop a psychometrically sound instrument to measure attitudes toward interprofessional collaboration in health profession students and practitioners regardless of their professions and areas of practice. Based on a review of the literature a list of 27 items was generated, 12 faculty judged the face validity of the items, and 124 health profession faculty examined the content validity of the items. The preliminary version of the instrument was administered to 1976 health profession students in three universities (Thomas Jefferson University, n = 510; Midwestern University, n = 392; and Monash University, n = 1074). Twenty items that survived the psychometric scrutiny were included in the Jefferson Scale of Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Collaboration (JeffSATIC). Two constructs of "working relationships" and "accountability" emerged from factor analysis of the JeffSATIC. Cronbach's α coefficients for the JeffSATIC ranged from 0.84 to 0.90 in the three samples. Women obtained significantly higher JeffSATIC mean scores than men. Medical students obtained lower mean score on the JeffSATIC than most other health profession students at the same university. Psychometric support from a relatively large sample size of students in a variety of health profession programs in this multi-institutional study is encouraging which adds to the credibility of the JeffSATIC.

No abstract

Researchers have demonstrated that team-based, collaborative care improves patient outcomes and fosters safer, more effective health care. Despite such positive findings, interprofessional collaboration (IPC) has been somewhat stunted in its adoption. Utilizing a socio-historical lens and employing expectation states theory, we explore potential reasons behind IPC's slow integration. More specifically, we argue that a primary mechanism hindering the achievement of the full promise of IPC stems not only from the rigid occupational status hierarchy nested within health care delivery, but also from the broader status differences between men and women--and how these societal-level disparities are exercised and perpetuated within health care delivery. For instance, we examine not only the historical differences in occupational status of the more "gendered" professions within health care delivery teams (e.g. medicine and nursing), but also the persistent under-representation of women in the physician workforce, especially in leadership positions. Doing so reveals how gender representation, or lack thereof, could potentially lead to ineffective, mismanaged and segmented interprofessional care. Implications and potential solutions are discussed.

PURPOSEThe COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected all areas of health care. Primary care practices are on the front lines for patients seeking health care during this period. Understanding clinical and administrative staff members' strategies for managing the broad-ranging changes to primary care service delivery is important for the support of workforce well-being, burnout, and commitment to primary care.METHODS Thirty-three staff members from 8 practices within a single health care system completed short, semistructured interviews from May 11, 2020 to July 20, 2020. Interviews were coded using a combination of conventional and directed content analysis. RESULTSThemes emerged from the data that mapped onto the Job Demands-Control-Social Support model. Participants reported that every aspect of primary care service delivery needed to be adapted for COVID-19, which increased their job demands significantly. Several also described pride in their development of new skills, and in most interviews, they expressed that the experience brought staff together. Staff engaged in active cognitive reframing of events during the interviews as they coped with increased workplace stress. However, as the pandemic changed from an acute stress event to a chronic stressor, staff were more likely to indicate signs of burnout.CONCLUSIONS Primary care teams absorbed tremendous burdens during COVID-19 but also found that some stress was offset by increased support from management and colleagues, belief in their own necessity, and new development opportunities. Considering high prepandemic strain levels, the ability of primary care teams to persist under these conditions might erode as the crisis becomes an enduring challenge.