Instruments measuring interprofessional collaboration in healthcare – a scoping review

Peltonen, Johanna; Leino‐Kilpi, Helena; Heikkilä, Heli; Rautava, Päivi; Tuomela, Karoliina; Siekkinen, Mervi; Sulosaari, Virpi; Stolt, Minna

doi:10.1080/13561820.2019.1637336

Cited by 54 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Development and support of interprofessional collaboration require constant evaluation from the perspective of both leaders and professionals. Evaluation could be conducted, for example, using regular, validated surveys (Peltonen et al, 2020), observations or some participatory methods (Hyytinen et al, 2019). All these methods should produce systematic, evidence-based knowledge about interprofessional collaboration for the organizations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and administrative support for interprofessional collaboration in a cancer center

Moilanen

Leino‐Kilpi

Kuusisto

et al. 2020

JHOM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe interprofessional collaboration is a key practice for providing cancer care. However, the realization of collaboration requires effective leadership and administrative support. In this study, the aim was to analyze healthcare professionals' perceptions of leadership and administrative support (strategic and management) in interprofessional collaboration for developing practices in cancer care.Design/methodology/approachA descriptive survey design was used to collect data from healthcare professionals (n = 350, response rate 33.3%), including nurses, physicians and other professionals participating in patient care in one Finnish cancer center (out of five) in 05/2018–10/2018. The data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. The instrument focused on leadership in the work unit and administrative support including organization strategy and organizational management.FindingsHealthcare professionals perceived leadership in the work unit, organization strategy and management for the support of interprofessional collaboration as weak. However, the ratings of male respondents and those in leading positions were more positive. The findings indicate that healthcare professionals in the cancer care setting are dissatisfied with the leadership and administrative support.Research limitations/implicationsInterprofessional collaboration, including its leadership, requires systematic and constant evaluation and development.Originality/valueHealthcare leaders in the cancer care setting can use the results to identify factors that might be in need of attention and development in the field of interprofessional collaboration.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leadership and administrative support for interprofessional collaboration in a cancer center

Moilanen

Leino‐Kilpi

Kuusisto

et al. 2020

JHOM

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1. The project was called “The Future Magnetic Cancer Center” (VETÄVÄ [2017–2020], funded by the Finnish Work Environment Fund). In addition to this qualitative study, IPC and work empowerment were also investigated quantitatively (Moilanen et al , 2019; Peltonen et al , 2020). …”

Section: Notementioning

confidence: 99%

Interplay of coordination, co-creation and community building: examining interprofessional collaboration in workplace development efforts in health care

Seppänen

Koskela

Heikkilä

et al. 2022

JWL

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is increasingly important in work and workplace learning. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the characteristics of IPC that are relevant for learning and developing at work. Design/methodology/approach We examine IPC in the discussion data of health care professionals when designing, implementing and evaluating developmental tasks. Qualitative content analysis is carried out on temporally sequential task trajectories, considering IPC from the perspective of the objects and goals of IPC task activity in developmental efforts. Findings The developmentally relevant characteristics of IPC are crystallized in the concepts of coordination, co-creation and community building, which play different, interdependent roles in development efforts. We show their interplay and how they complement each other in practice. Research limitations/implications Our findings regarding IPC characteristics are to be interpreted as working hypotheses and resources for further research. Practical implications Understanding the dynamics of IPC is useful for renewing work practices. Attention to the interplay and complementarity of IPC characteristics may help in the design and implementation of effective and sustained development efforts. Originality/value The dynamics of IPC in developmental settings have not been sufficiently studied. This paper proposes three developmentally relevant and intertwined characteristics of IPC for scholars of workplace learning.

show abstract

“…While the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration is widely recognised, debate continues about how to acquire and measure these competences [ 8 , 9 ]. Residents are expected to learn to participate within MDTMs according to the master-apprentice principle, in which they learn ‘on the job’ by observing the medical specialists and assume increasingly active participative roles in discussions during their training [ 10 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing tomorrow’s medical specialists for participating in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: perceived barriers, facilitators and training needs

Walraven

Meulen²,

Hoeven³

et al. 2022

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The optimal treatment plan for patients with cancer is discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Effective meetings require all participants to have collaboration and communication competences. Participating residents (defined as qualified doctors in training to become a specialist) are expected to develop these competences by observing their supervisors. However, the current generation of medical specialists is not trained to work in multidisciplinary teams; currently, training mainly focuses on medical competences. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators among residents with respect to learning how to participate competently in MDTMs, and to identify additional training needs regarding their future role in MDTMs, as perceived by residents and specialists. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch residents and medical specialists participating in oncological MDTMs. Purposive sampling was used to maximise variation in participants’ demographic and professional characteristics (e.g. sex, specialty, training duration, type and location of affiliated hospital). Interview data were systematically analysed according to the principles of thematic content analysis. Results Nineteen residents and 16 specialists were interviewed. Three themes emerged: 1) awareness of the educational function of MDTMs among specialists and residents; 2) characteristics of MDTMs (e.g. time constraints, MDTM regulations) and 3) team dynamics and behaviour. Learning to participate in MDTMs is facilitated by: specialists and residents acknowledging the educational function of MDTMs beyond their medical content, and supervisors fulfilling their teaching role and setting conditions that enable residents to take a participative role (e.g. being well prepared, sitting in the inner circle, having assigned responsibilities). Barriers to residents’ MDTM participation were insufficient guidance by their supervisors, time constraints, regulations hindering their active participation, a hierarchical structure of relations, unfamiliarity with the team and personal characteristics of residents (e.g. lack of confidence and shyness). Interviewees indicated a need for additional training (e.g. simulations) for residents, especially to enhance behavioural and communication skills. Conclusion Current practice with regard to preparing residents for their future role in MDTMs is hampered by a variety of factors. Most importantly, more awareness of the educational purposes of MDTMs among both residents and medical specialists would allow residents to participate in and learn from oncological MDTMs. Future studies should focus on collaboration competences.

show abstract

Instruments measuring interprofessional collaboration in healthcare – a scoping review

Cited by 54 publications

References 54 publications

Leadership and administrative support for interprofessional collaboration in a cancer center

Leadership and administrative support for interprofessional collaboration in a cancer center

Interplay of coordination, co-creation and community building: examining interprofessional collaboration in workplace development efforts in health care

Preparing tomorrow’s medical specialists for participating in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: perceived barriers, facilitators and training needs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About