| Title |
Interprofessional collaboration in nursing homes (interprof): development and piloting of measures to improve interprofessional collaboration and communication: a qualitative multicentre study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Primary Care, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12875-017-0678-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christiane A. Müller, Nina Fleischmann, Christoph Cavazzini, Susanne Heim, Svenja Seide, Christina Geister, Britta Tetzlaff, Andreas Hoell, Jochen Werle, Siegfried Weyerer, Martin Scherer, Eva Hummers |
| Abstract |
Given both the increase of nursing home residents forecast and challenges of current interprofessional interactions, we developed and tested measures to improve collaboration and communication between nurses and general practitioners (GPs) in this setting. Our multicentre study has been funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (FK 01GY1124). The measures were developed iteratively in a continuous process, which is the focus of this article. In part 1 "exploration of the situation", interviews were conducted with GPs, nurses, nursing home residents and their relatives focusing on interprofessional interactions and medical care. They were analysed qualitatively. Based on these results, in part 2 "development of measures to improve collaboration", ideas for improvement were developed in nine focus groups with GPs and nurses. These ideas were revisited in a final expert workshop. We analysed the focus groups and expert workshop using mind mapping methods, and finally drew up the compilation of measures. In an exploratory pilot study "study part 3" four nursing homes chose the measures they wanted to adopt. These were tested for three months. Feasibility and acceptance of the measures were evaluated via guideline interviews with the stakeholders which were analysed by content analyses. Six measures were generated: meetings to establish common goals, main contact person, standardised pro re nata medication, introduction of name badges, improved availability of nurse/GP and standardised scheduling/ procedure for nursing home visits. In the pilot study, the measures were implemented in four nursing homes. GPs and nurses reviewed five measures as feasible and acceptable, only the designation of a "main contact person" was not considered as an improvement. Six measures to improve collaboration and communication could be compiled in a multistep qualitative process respecting the perspectives of involved stakeholders. Five of the six measures were positively assessed in an exploratory pilot study. They could easily be transferred into the daily routine of other nursing homes, as no special models have to exist in advance. Impact of the measures on patient oriented outcomes should be examined in further research. Not applicable. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ireland | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 149 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 26 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 23 | 15% |
| Researcher | 20 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 6% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 5% |
| Other | 18 | 12% |
| Unknown | 45 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 43 | 29% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 16% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
| Psychology | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 17 | 11% |
| Unknown | 50 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 February 2018.
All research outputs
#16,725,651
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Primary Care
#1,612
of 2,359 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,732
of 450,898 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Primary Care
#33
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,359 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,898 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.