No abstract

This paper reports on some of the findings from a collaborative study funded by the Big Lottery and led by Crossroads Caring for Carers about carers for people with mental health problems. The protection and use of information in mental health are firmly rooted in ethics and professional codes, law and policy, as well as values and professional practice. While government initiatives have attempted to augment the role and rights of carers, policy guidance involving information sharing between professionals and carers has failed to deal with the practical dilemmas of patient confidentiality. Professional codes and training neither explore nor develop the moral and ethical ground that stands between the service user's need for privacy and the carer's need for information. Policy and training guidance on confidentiality is scattered, ambiguous, confusing for professionals and inconsistent. There is uncertainty in practice about the information that professionals may share, and many professionals do not take into account carers' rights, not least to basic information to help them care for service users. 'Confidentiality smokescreens' may sometimes lead to information being withheld from carers. Professionals sometimes find it easier and safer to say nothing. In order to explore these issues from the perspectives of professionals, 65 participants were interviewed. The sample included directors and senior staff from the health, social care and voluntary sectors. Respondents were asked to comment at length on their understanding of confidentiality and information sharing with carers. Findings highlight confidentiality smokescreens that erect barriers that limit effective information sharing; issues involving confidentiality, risk management and carers in crisis; examples of good practice; and the need for the training of professionals on confidentiality issues and the rights of carers. This paper explores the challenge of confidentiality smokescreens from the perspective of professionals, and draws out implications for professional practice and training.

Australia and New Zealand both have large populations of people with limited English proficiency (LEP). Australia's free telephone interpreter service, which is also used by New Zealand through Language Line (LL) but at a cost to the practices, is underused in both countries. Interpreter guidelines warn against the use of family members, yet the lack of uptake of interpreter services must mean that they are still often used. This paper reviews the literature on medical interpreter use and reports the results of a week-long audit of interpreted consultations in an urban New Zealand primary health centre with a high proportion of refugee and migrant patients. The centre's (annualised) tally of professionally interpreted consultations was three times more than that of LL consultations by all other NZ practices put together. Despite this relatively high usage, 49% of all interpreted consultations used untrained interpreters (mostly family), with more used in 'on-the-day' (OTD) clinics. Clinicians rated such interpreters as working well 88% of the time in the OTD consultations, and 36% of the time in booked consultations. An in-house interpreter (28% of consultations) was rated as working well 100% of the time. Telephone interpreters (21% of consultations) received mixed ratings. The use of trained interpreters is woefully inadequate and needs to be vigorously promoted. In primary care settings where on-going relationships, continuity and trust are important - the ideal option (often not possible) is an in-house trained interpreter. The complexity of interpreted consultations needs to be appreciated in making good judgements when choosing the best option to optimise communication and in assessing when there may be a place for family interpreting. This paper examines the elements of making such a judgement.

BackgroundCollaborative interprofessional practice is an important means of providing effective care to people with complex health problems. Interprofessional education (IPE) is assumed to enhance interprofessional practice despite challenges to demonstrate its efficacy. This study evaluated whether an IPE programme changed students’ attitudes to interprofessional teams and interprofessional learning, students’ self-reported effectiveness as a team member, and students’ perceived ability to manage long-term conditions.MethodsA prospective controlled trial evaluated an eleven-hour IPE programme focused on long-term conditions’ management. Pre-registration students from the disciplines of dietetics (n = 9), medicine (n = 36), physiotherapy (n = 12), and radiation therapy (n = 26) were allocated to either an intervention group (n = 41) who received the IPE program or a control group (n = 42) who continued with their usual discipline specific curriculum. Outcome measures were the Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS), Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale (RIPLS), the Team Skills Scale (TSS), and the Long-Term Condition Management Scale (LTCMS). Analysis of covariance compared mean post-intervention scale scores adjusted for baseline scores.ResultsMean post-intervention attitude scores (all on a five-point scale) were significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group for all scales. The mean difference for the ATHCTS was 0.17 (95 %CI 0.05 to 0.30; p = 0.006), for the RIPLS was 0.30 (95 %CI 0.16 to 0.43; p < 0.001), for the TSS was 0.71 (95 %CI 0.49 to 0.92; p < 0.001), and for the LTCMS was 0.75 (95 %CI 0.56 to 0.94; p < 0.001). The mean effect of the intervention was similar for students from the two larger disciplinary sub-groups of medicine and radiation therapy.ConclusionsAn eleven-hour IPE programme resulted in improved attitudes towards interprofessional teams and interprofessional learning, as well as self-reported ability to function within an interprofessional team, and self-reported confidence, knowledge, and ability to manage people with long-term conditions. These findings indicate that a brief intervention such as this can have immediate positive effects and contribute to the development of health professionals who are ready to collaborate with others to improve patient outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12909-015-0385-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is known to improve and enhance care for people with complex healthcare and social care needs and is ideally anchored in primary care. Such care is complex, challenging, and often poorly undertaken. In countries such as Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Australia, and New Zealand, primary care is provided predominantly via general practices, where groups of general practitioners and nurses typically work. Using a case study design, direct observations were made of interprofessional activity in three diverse general practices in New Zealand to determine how collaboration is achieved and maintained. Non-participant observation of health professional interaction was undertaken and recorded using field notes and video recordings. Observational data were subject to analysis prior to collection of interview data, subsequently gathered independently at each site. Case-specific themes were developed before determining cross-case themes. Cross-case themes revealed five key elements to IPC: the built environment, practice demographics and location, practice business models, shared goals, and team structure and climate. The combination of elements at each practice site indicated that strengths in one area helped offset challenges in others. The three practices (cases) collectively demonstrated the importance of an "all of practice" commitment to collaborative practice so that shared decision-making can occur.

Case study research is a comprehensive method that incorporates multiple sources of data to provide detailed accounts of complex research phenomena in real-life contexts. However, current models of case study research do not particularly distinguish the unique contribution observation data can make. Observation methods have the potential to reach beyond other methods that rely largely or solely on self-report. This article describes the distinctive characteristics of case study observational research, a modified form of Yin's 2014 model of case study research the authors used in a study exploring interprofessional collaboration in primary care. In this approach, observation data are positioned as the central component of the research design. Case study observational research offers a promising approach for researchers in a wide range of health care settings seeking more complete understandings of complex topics, where contextual influences are of primary concern. Future research is needed to refine and evaluate the approach.