An interprofessional model for serving youth at risk for substance abuse: the team case study

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update)

BACKGROUND

The delivery of effective, high-quality patient care is a complex activity. It demands health and social care professionals collaborate in an effective manner. Research continues to suggest that collaboration between these professionals can be problematic. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve interprofessional collaboration and patient care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific education interventions; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 2006 to 2011. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (2006 to 2011), reference lists of all included studies, the proceedings of leading IPE conferences, and websites of IPE organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client or healthcare process outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. For included studies, at least two review authors extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format.

MAIN RESULTS

This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

Patient care is a complex activity which demands that health and social care professionals work together in an effective manner. The evidence suggests, however, that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve collaboration and patient care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to education interventions in which the same health and social care professionals learn separately from one another; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 1999 to 2006. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1999 to 2006), reference lists of the six included studies and leading IPE books, IPE conference proceedings, and websites of IPE organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client and/or healthcare process outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, and extracted data from, and assessed study quality of, included studies. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible given the small number of included studies and the heterogeneity in methodological designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six studies (four RCTs and two CBA studies). Four of these studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; management of care delivered to domestic violence victims; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, two of the six studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and two studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This updated review found six studies that met the inclusion criteria, in contrast to our first review that found no eligible studies. Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies, the heterogeneity of interventions, and the methodological limitations, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. More rigorous IPE studies (i.e. those employing RCTs, CBA or ITS designs with rigorous randomisation procedures, better allocation concealment, larger sample sizes, and more appropriate control groups) are needed to provide better evidence of the impact of IPE on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These studies should also include data collection strategies that provide insight into how IPE affects changes in health care processes and patient outcomes.

Promoting interprofessional education

The work of the Institute of Medicine and others has clearly demonstrated that when healthcare professionals understand each others' roles and are able to communicate and work effectively together, patients are more likely to receive safe, quality care. Currently, there are few opportunities to bring faculty and students in pre-licensure programs from multiple disciplines together for the purpose of learning together about each others' roles, and practicing collaboration and teamwork. Designing and implementing interprofessional education offerings is challenging. Course scheduling, faculty interest and expertise in interprofessional education (IPE), a culture of IPE among faculty and students, and institutional policies for sharing course credit among schools are just a few of the challenges. This article explores the concept of IPE, and how faculty in schools of nursing might take the lead to work with colleagues in other health profession schools to prepare graduates to understand each others' roles, and the importance of teamwork, communication, and collaboration to the delivery of high quality, safe patient care.

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

BACKGROUND

As patient care becomes more complex, effective collaboration between health and social care professionals is required. However, evidence suggests that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way forward in this area.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the usefulness of IPE interventions compared to education in which the same professions were learning separately from one another.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE (1968 to 1998) and Cinahl (1982 to 1998). We also hand searched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1992 to 1998), the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education Bulletin (1987 to 1998), conference proceedings, the 'grey literature' held by relevant organisations, and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE interventions designed to improve collaborative practice between health/social care practitioners and/or the health/well being of patients/clients. The participants included chiropodists/podiatrists, complementary therapists, dentists, dietitians, doctors/physicians, hygienists, psychologists, psychotherapists, midwives, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, speech therapists and/or social workers. The outcomes included objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and reliable (objective or validated subjective) health care process measures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies.

MAIN RESULTS

The total yield from the search strategy was 1042, of which 89 were retained for further consideration. However none of these studies met the inclusion criteria.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Despite finding a large body of literature on the evaluation of IPE, these studies lacked the methodological rigour needed to begin to convincingly understand the impact of IPE on professional practice and/or health care outcomes.