South Eastern Interprofessional Collaborative Learning Environment (SEIPCLE): Nurturing Collaborative Practice

Abstract

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. to gaps and/or duplication in the provision of care, and lengthening times between diagnosis and treatment. Healthcare providers are pressured to care for more patients, reduce wait times, and achieve the same or better clinical outcomes while working within current financial and human resource constraints [2]. Numerous efforts and investments have been made to address these issues. One such response has been to improve the co-ordination of care and workplace cultures through integrated interprofessional care.Interprofessional care and collaborative practice As a model of care, collaborative practice is an interprofessional process for communication and decision-making that enables the separate and shared knowledge and skills of the care providers to synergistically influence the client/patient care being provided while retaining the integrity of each profession [3]. It is this process of collaboration that is most often discussed when talking about teamwork in healthcare. Collaborative practice occurs when healthcare provide...

A BEME systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education: BEME Guide No. 39

“…In general, studies included between two to six professions. However, there were a small number of studies that included a wider professional mix: over 20 different professions groups (Curran et al 2007), 17 groups (Byrnes et al 2012) and 13 groups (Watts et al 2007).…”

“…The influence of learner attitudes towards IPE was reported in a number of studies (e.g. Pollard et al 2006;Bradley et al 2009;Byrnes et al 2012). In general, it was reported that learners entered their respective IPE programmes and courses with positive attitudes, which would often diminish after participation in their respective interprofessional learning activities.…”

“…In general, it was found that IPE participation was a voluntary activity (e.g. Watts et al 2007;Nesbit et al 2008;Hollenberg et al 2009;Byrnes et al 2012). As a result, learners who self-selected for IPE were regarded as motivated to learn in a collaborative manner with learners from other professional groups.…”

“…Often, an IPE course would be developed by a project steering group or curriculum development committee (Just et al 2010;Lineker et al 2012;Anderson & Thorpe 2014) who at times, worked with other stakeholders such as healthcare providers, researchers, and/or patients (e.g. Hollenberg et al 2009;Byrnes et al 2012).…”

Variables associated with interprofessional collaboration: a comparison between primary healthcare and specialized mental health teams

“…IPC has benefits for patients, health professionals, healthcare organizations and health systems [3,4]. Studies have shown that good IPC reduces healthcare costs and expenditures, enhances quality of care and increases job satisfaction, improving staff retention and patient outcomes [5,6]. IPC responds to the shortage of financial, human, and technical resources by providing solutions that increase the effectiveness and efficiency of health services, while better responding to the complex needs of patients with chronic conditions [1,7].…”