Search results

Modernised health and social care services require that qualifying practitioners have the necessary skills for them to practise collaboratively. The nature of interprofessional working is, however, poorly understood. This article describes the development of learning outcomes regarding interprofessional working that are relevant to all professions.

One overlooked determinant of interprofessional teamwork is the mobilisation of professional identity. Taking a health or social care practitioner out of their professional silo and placing them in an interprofessional team setting will challenge their professional identity. The theory of signature pedagogy was used to investigate the challenges and what is needed to support practitioners to mobilise their professional identity to maximise teamwork.

A cross-sectional mixed methods study was undertaken in the form of three focus groups, with members of health and social care teams in Wales, UK. Using nominal group technique, participants explored and ranked the challenges and benefits of mobilising their professional identity within an interprofessional setting.

Findings on mobilising professional identity were found to be aligned closely with the three signature pedagogy apprenticeships of learning to think and to perform like others in their profession and to act with moral integrity. The biggest challenge facing practitioners was thinking like others in their profession while in an interprofessional team.

The focus of this study is health and social care teams within Wales, UK, which may limit the results to teams that have a similar representation of professionals.

Healthcare leaders should be aware of the opportunities to promote mobilisation of professional identity to maximise teamwork. For example, at induction, by introducing the different roles and shared responsibilities. Such practical implications do have consequences for policy as regards interprofessional team development and organisational commitments to adult learning and evaluation.

This is the first study of professional identity of interprofessional healthcare and social professionals using signature pedagogy to gain a better understanding of teamwork.

The modernisation agenda in health and social care is concerned with providing an integrated service for patients/clients and their carers. This paper focuses on the nature of practice‐based learning environments that support the development of students as effective interprofessional practitioners for the modernised health and social care services.

There is a general agreement that the potential of shared learning is great in terms of interprofessional working and client care. Despite the fact that interprofessional education has been a key area of professional education and practice policies for the last decade there is a dearth of evidence of its successful implementation in maternity care. Doctors and midwives are often educated in separate faculties within universities and rarely given the opportunity for shared learning activities, particularly at postgraduate level. Barriers to implementing interprofessional learning are identified within the literature and these include a difference in perception of the status each profession holds and different ways of working and learning which impedes the development of interprofessional relationships. It is argued that through interprofessional education, doctors and midwives should be enabled to develop skills of collaborative working, thus making referrals between professionals more effective. The exploration of the differences of professional cultures in a shared learning environment will enable professionals to formulate agreement on best practice in the clinical areas, based on current best evidence. Thus, interprofessional education aims to dispel the stereotypes and prejudice which often act as a barrier to effective collaborative working. The implications of interprofessional education on three main areas of practice are explored using a review of the literature: professional roles; conflict and collaboration between professions; and the sharing of knowledge and skills. Recommendations are made for the development of post‐registration shared learning that address these key areas.

The current emphasis on the development of an interprofessional workforce in health and social care puts interprofessional learning at the heart of undergraduate curricula. This paper explores the concept of interprofessional mentorship and considers how this role might be developed in order to facilitate interprofessional learning in the practice placement.

The purpose of this paper is to explore interprofessional and multidisciplinary working between health and social care practitioners providing services to older people through the prism of how risk is assessed and managed. It proposes that whilst interprofessional and multidisciplinary working is a broad and commonly researched topic, there is a relative paucity of evidence specifically regarding how health and social care practitioners work together across structural, cultural and ideological divides. The study aims to expand the domain of integrated health and social care by including perceptions, understanding and use of the concept of risk by professionals from different disciplines.

This paper is based upon an exploratory study using an interpretivist phenomenological perspective, including 23 semi-structured individual interviews with health and social care practitioners and 2 non-participant observations of multidisciplinary team meetings.

The paper provides empirical insights around the complex dynamics of interprofessional and multidisciplinary working between health and social care practitioners, in particular the saliency of the interconnectedness of individual practitioner Personalities with the Process of interprofessional and multidisciplinary working under the auspices of relevant Policy drivers.

The research was conducted in Wales and, due to the increasingly divergent policy context within the UK, the research results may lack generalisability from a wider UK or international perspective. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the propositions of this research further.

The paper includes implications for both interprofessional and multidisciplinary policy and practice with older people. With new models of integrated care being sought, the findings of this study may offer a timely and valuable contribution, particularly from the inclusion of a social care perspective and in better understanding the interconnectedness of practitioner personalities with process and policy.

This paper fulfils an identified need to study the complex dynamics and interconnectedness between health and social care practitioners who work together to provide services to older people.

The purpose of this paper is to propose that interprofessional working between professionals who work with people living with HIV (PLWHIV) contributes to improvements in the health, social care needs and long-term outcomes of PLWHIV. Interprofessional working initiatives have been useful in promoting successful frameworks used towards improving various aspects of the HIV disease family planning and transmission prevention. The paper proposes that interprofessional working is important in elevating stigma and discrimination that sometimes prevent PLWHIV from successfully achieving parenthood through adoption. The objective of this study is to contribute to social work practice and literature that supports adoption.

This paper draws on an interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) study looking at the experiences of PLWHIV going through the adoption process. The study relied on in-depth interviews with six PLWHIV who had gone through the adoption process and presented views regarding a need for better collaborative working by those assessing PLWHIV going through adoption. The sample was purpose and homogeneous. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using IPA framework. Transcripts had been written up and analysed individually. Following which a cross-case analysis to create meaning and conceptual understanding that was common among all cases.

Drawing on themes around interprofessional working, this paper argues that there is a need for improved and transparent interprofessional working models within adoption systems. The paper provides conceptual understanding around interprofessional working and how this can be brought about to support the needs of PLWHIV seeking to adopt children. It proposes that working in isolation will leave PLWHIV feeling that the adoption process is ambiguous and unfair, yet efforts to combat this are evident in healthcare settings.

Limitations to this study include an acceptable but small convenience sample within IPA methodological approaches. This is a hard to reach sample and results may not be generalisable.

This paper opens a dialogue for discussing issues around the adoption for PLWHIV and informing professionals about increasing opportunities for PLWHIV to adopt children where there is a high demand for adoptive parents.

Placing the views of participants in this study within the body of knowledge could influence meaningful collaboration between adoption social workers and those supporting PLWHIV within health, social care and voluntary sectors. This may influence change and reduce stigma and barriers preventing some PLWHIV from successfully adopting children.

This paper meets an identified need to explore how PLWHIV can be supported to achieve parenthood. The paper expands on existing knowledge around the need to provide fertility treatment to PLWHIV. It suggests that child adoption can be promoted through child adoption and ultimately promoting normalcy around the desires of PLWHIV to achieve parenthood using non-traditional methods of conception.

This article discusses the practice‐based teaching strategies required to assist students to develop interprofessional working capability. A role‐play session is presented as an exemplar, but the teaching strategies described can be equally employed in facilitating reflections on practice in real‐life multiprofessional teams.

The agenda for change in health and social care calls for an integrated approach with interprofessional working around care pathways. At the same time there is a shift towards a more user‐centred service. Where does this leave the professions and what is the role of higher education? Interprofessional learning (IPL) is sometimes seen as a threat to professional integrity and identity. However, it may be the key to not only enhancing the patients'/clients' experience of care, but also enriching professional fulfilment. What are the arguments around IPL and what might be the benefits?

This article aims to present a systematic review and synthesis of evidence on the experiences, role and use of IPE in IH fields by using a meta-ethnographic approach including key concepts, reciprocal and refutational translation and lines of argument. Inclusion health (IH) practice suggests that the needs of excluded groups are more effectively addressed through collaborative working. Interprofessional education (IPE) occurs when two or more professions engage in shared practice and learning, resulting in improved collaboration and quality of care. Studies on IPE to train staff in fields relating to IH exist, but without a settled consensus on the best approaches/activities to foster inclusive practice.

This synthesis is underpinned by a meta-ethnographic approach. It provides explicit stages of data collection and interpretation, while providing space to engage with emerging themes and concepts iteratively (reflecting on author experiences) and inductively (reasoning and interpretation). This study made use of electronic databases and journals for English language peer reviewed articles between 2000 and 2020. Of the 2217 articles, 19 papers were included. The lead author and reviewer completed the review process and a second reviewer reviewed 10% at each stage. The quality was assessed using a modified CASP checklist. Iterative analysis involved PPI and staff stakeholders.

A total of 16 concepts embedded in 19 papers provide insight into the nature of IPE in IH (IH) for staff. It was found that IPE in IH covers a broad group of practitioners and is a complex activity involving individual and organisation readiness, practical and pedagogical factors, influenced by setting, method, curriculum, lived experience, reflection and a learner-driven approach. Barriers to design, implementation and translation into practice were also found to exist.

Most studies used a combination of core learning and group work. Educational modes include mentoring or coaching, reflective practice, immersive learning and people lived experience of exclusion involved in or facilitation thematically centred in trauma-informed informed care, cultural competence, communities of practice and service learning. The aim of these methods was to promote collaboration through identifying shared experiences, problems and tensions and critical reflection of services and organisations. Such transformative learning is reported to challenge stigma, discrimination and misinformation and promote collective empowerment to address social injustice through human connection. Effective models of IPE re-instated the therapeutic relationship and alliances between patients and staff.

This review also calls for the development of health and care workers’ professionalism in relation to their own reflexivity, establishing anti-racist curricula, challenge stigma and ensuring clinicians are aware of and able to negotiate tension and difference identified within the consultation and between themselves. Apart from developing generalist skills, this analysis suggests that IPE in IH may be able to challenge stigma and discrimination towards IH groups by destabilising existing norms and siloed working with the aim of achieving robust interprofessional practice.

IPE in IH is a complex activity affected by individual and organisation readiness, setting, experiential, practical and pedagogical factors. Models of teaching are focused on re-instating the therapeutic relationship. There are no systematic reviews in this field and previously there was no settled consensus on the best approaches and learning activities to foster inclusive and collaborative practice.