Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings. Methods: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual). Results: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals’ skills and contribution. Conclusions: The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

/pdf/an-overview-of-reviews-on-interprofessional-collaboration-in-1k0i0vbx54.pdf

An Overview of Reviews on Interprofessional Collaboration in Primary Care: Barriers and Facilitators

Background Having nurses take on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors (doctor-nurse substitution, a form of ’task-shifting’) may help to address doctor shortages and reduce doctors’ workload and human resource costs. A Cochrane Review of effectiveness studies suggested that nurse-led care probably leads to similar healthcare outcomes as care delivered by doctors. This finding highlights the need to explore the factors that affect the implementation of strategies to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. In our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focused on studies of nurses taking on tasks that are typically conducted by doctors working in primary care, including substituting doctors with nurses or expanding nurses’ roles. Objectives (1) To identify factors influencing implementation of interventions to substitute doctors with nurses in primary care. (2) To explore how our synthesis findings related to, and helped to explain, the findings of the Cochrane intervention review of the effectiveness of substituting doctors with nurses. (3) To identify hypotheses for subgroup analyses for future updates of the Cochrane intervention review. Search methods We searched CINAHL and PubMed, contacted experts in the field, scanned the reference lists of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searches for key articles in the Social Science Citation Index and Science Citation Index databases, and ’related article’ searches in PubMed. Selection criteria We constructed a maximum variation sample (exploring variables such as country level of development, aspects of care covered and the types of participants) from studies that had collected and analysed qualitative data related to the factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution and the expansion of nurses' tasks in community or primary care worldwide. We included perspectives of doctors, nurses, patients and their families/carers, policymakers, programme managers, other health workers and any others directly involved in or affected by the substitution. We excluded studies that collected data using qualitative methods but did not analyse the data qualitatively. Data collection and analysis We identified factors influencing implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies using a framework thematic synthesis approach. Two review authors independently assessed the methodological strengths and limitations of included studies using a modified Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. We assessed confidence in the evidence for the QES findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We integrated our findings with the evidence from the effectiveness review of doctor-nurse substitution using a matrix model. Finally, we identified hypotheses for subgroup analyses for updates of the review of effectiveness. Main results We included 66 studies (69 papers), 11 from low- or middle-income countries and 55 from high-income countries. These studies found several factors that appeared to influence the implementation of doctor-nurse substitution strategies. The following factors were based on findings that we assessed as moderate or high confidence. Patients in many studies knew little about nurses' roles and the difference between nurse-led and doctor-led care. They also had mixed views about the type of tasks that nurses should deliver. They preferred doctors when the tasks were more 'medical' but accepted nurses for preventive care and follow-ups. Doctors in most studies also preferred that nurses performed only 'non-medical' tasks. Nurses were comfortable with, and believed they were competent to deliver a wide range of tasks, but particularly emphasised tasks that were more health promotive/preventive in nature. Patients in most studies thought that nurses were more easily accessible than doctors. Doctors and nurses also saw nurse-doctor substitution and collaboration as a way of increasing people's access to care, and improving the quality and continuity of care. Nurses thought that close doctor-nurse relationships and doctor's trust in and acceptance of nurses was important for shaping their roles. But nurses working alone sometimes found it difficult to communicate with doctors. Nurses felt they had gained new skills when taking on new tasks. But nurses wanted more and better training. They thought this would increase their skills, job satisfaction and motivation, and would make them more independent. Nurses taking on doctors' tasks saw this as an opportunity to develop personally, to gain more respect and to improve the quality of care they could offer to patients. Better working conditions and financial incentives also motivated nurses to take on new tasks. Doctors valued collaborating with nurses when this reduced their own workload. Doctors and nurses pointed to the importance of having access to resources, such as enough staff, equipment and supplies; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate training and supervision. But they often had problems with these issues. They also pointed to the huge number of documents they needed to complete when tasks were moved from doctors to nurses. Authors' conclusions Patients, doctors and nurses may accept the use of nurses to deliver services that are usually delivered by doctors. But this is likely to depend on the type of services. Nurses taking on extra tasks want respect and collaboration from doctors; as well as proper resources; good referral systems; experienced leaders; clear roles; and adequate incentives, training and supervision. However, these needs are not always met. © 2019 The Cochrane Collaboration.

/pdf/barriers-and-facilitators-to-the-implementation-of-doctor-jw8uqgesnw.pdf

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of doctor‐nurse substitution strategies in primary care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

ABSTRACT Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is a practice model to promote healthcare quality. Since the World Health Organization highlighted the importance of IPC in 2010, a large volume of IPC-related research has been published. Multiple systematic reviews have been conducted to synthesize the literature from varying perspectives. Although systematic reviews are a compelling approach to synthesizing primary research, a systematic meta-review was needed to summarize the systematic reviews to offer information for healthcare professionals, researchers, and policymakers. This systematic meta-review was designed to synthesize the systematic reviews of IPC, emphasizing the IPC-related facilitators, barriers, and outcomes between 2010 and 2020. An electronic search for systematic reviews was performed in December 2020. The databases searched included PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Thirty-six systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Factors facilitating or impeding IPC were classified into three levels: organization, team, and individual. Major outcomes related to patients, healthcare professionals, and organizations. The facilitators, barriers, and outcomes are mutually interrelated. Highly effective collaboration is a process from relationship building to working together and collaborating. Improving IPC requires organizational, teams, and individuals’ combined efforts. When highly effective collaborations occur, all stakeholders can benefit – organizations, professionals, and patients.

A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews about interprofessional collaboration: facilitators, barriers, and outcomes

Primary care needs to be strengthened in order to address the many societal challenges. Group practices in primary care foster collaboration with other health care providers, which encourages care co-ordination and leads to a higher quality of primary care. Nursing roles and responsibilities expanded over time and nurses have been found to often provide equal high-quality chronic patient care compared to physicians, even with higher patient satisfaction. Inter-professional collaboration between primary care physicians and nurses is a possible strategy to achieve the desired quality outcomes in a strengthened primary care system. The objective of this research is to synthesize the evidence presented in literature on the impact of collaboration between physicians and nurses on patient outcomes in primary care or in comparable care settings. A systematic review of peer-reviewed reviews was performed in four databases: COCHRANE, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL. All studies from 1970 until May 22 2016 were included in the search strategy. Titles, abstracts and full texts were respectively reviewed. At least two of the three authors independently reviewed each of the 277 abstracts and 58 full texts retrieved in the searches to identify those which contained all the inclusion criteria. Two authors independently appraised the methodological quality of the reviews, using the AMSTAR quality appraisal tool. A total of eleven systematic reviews met all the inclusion criteria and almost fifty different patient outcomes were described. In most reviews, it was concluded that nurses do have added value. Blood pressure, patient satisfaction and hospitalization are patient outcomes where three or more systematic reviews concluded better results when physicians and nurses collaborated, compared to usual care. Colorectal screening, hospital length of stay and health-related quality of life are outcomes where collaboration appeared not to be effective. Collaboration between physicians and nurses may have a positive impact on a number of patient outcomes and on a variety of pathologies. To address future challenges of primary care, there is a need for more integrated inter-professional collaboration care models with sufficiently educated nurses.

/pdf/an-overview-of-systematic-reviews-on-the-collaboration-3bl1ijr5a4.pdf

An overview of systematic reviews on the collaboration between physicians and nurses and the impact on patient outcomes: what can we learn in primary care?

This integrative review synthesizes research studies in order to explore the perceptions of allied health professionals regarding interprofessional collaboration in primary health care. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using three electronic databases and a manual search of the Journal of Interprofessional Care. The Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of included papers. Study findings were extracted, critically examined and grouped into themes. Twelve studies conducted in six different countries met the inclusion criteria. Thematic analysis revealed five themes: (1) shared philosophy; (2) communication and clinical interaction; (3) physical environment; (4) power and hierarchy; and (5) financial considerations. This review has identified diverse key elements related to interprofessional collaboration in primary health care, as perceived by allied health professionals. Opportunity for frequent, informal communication appeared essential for interprofessional collaboration to occur. Allied health professionals working in close proximity to health practitioners from other professions had more regular interprofessional interactions than those who were geographically separated. Co-location of multiple primary health care services within the same physical space may offer increased opportunities for interprofessional collaboration. Future research should avoid reporting on allied health professionals in primary health care collectively, and isolate data to the individual professions. Direct observational methods are warranted to investigate whether allied health professionals' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration align with their actual clinical interactions in primary health care settings.

Allied health professionals' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: an integrative review

Background The epidemiological transition calls for redefining the roles of the various professionals involved in primary health care towards greater collaboration. We aimed to identify facilitators of, and barriers to, interprofessional collaboration in primary health care as perceived by the actors involved, other than nurses. Methods Systematic review using synthetic thematic analysis of qualitative research. Articles were retrieved from Medline, Web of science, Psychinfo and The Cochrane library up to July 2013. Quality and relevance of the studies were assessed according to the Dixon-Woods criteria. The following stakeholders were targeted: general practitioners, pharmacists, mental health workers, midwives, physiotherapists, social workers and receptionists. Results Forty-four articles were included. The principal facilitator of interprofessional collaboration in primary care was the different actors’ common interest in collaboration, perceiving opportunities to improve quality of care and to develop new professional fields. The main barriers were the challenges of definition and awareness of one another’s roles and competences, shared information, confidentiality and responsibility, team building and interprofessional training, long-term funding and joint monitoring. Conclusions Interprofessional organization and training based on appropriate models should support collaboration development. The active participation of the patient is required to go beyond professional boundaries and hierarchies. Multidisciplinary research projects are recommended.

/pdf/interprofessional-collaboration-in-primary-health-care-a-2u82atm8lm.pdf

Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

C. Chemla

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Interprofessional collaboration in primary health care: a review of facilitators and barriers perceived by involved actors