Interprofessional collaboration to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes

The Effects of Interprofessional Education in Mental Health Practice: Findings from a Systematic Review

“…The apparent lack of association between undergraduate mental health IPE interventions and behavioral change corresponds with findings from other studies that outcomes tend to be discernible only at Kirkpatrick's levels 1 (learners' reaction), 2a (attitudes), and 2b (knowledge and skills) [3,7,10,27]. Thus, only two of the eight studies reviewed here [17,27] reported outcomes related to patient care.…”

“…Thus, only two of the eight studies reviewed here [17,27] reported outcomes related to patient care. Similarly, the literature in general reveals a lack of involvement of users in the undergraduate IPE interventions [1,10,28]. Such a patientcentered approach could be ensured by involving patients in the planning, delivery, and evaluation of IPE interventions [16,17].…”

“…Interprofessional collaboration in the field is thus hampered by strong uniprofessional cultures, a diversity of approaches to the care and treatment of patients, and conflict over leadership [3,[7][8][9]. Interprofessional education (IPE) nevertheless continues to be invoked by policymakers as an effective method to improve collaboration [4,6], and calls for its wider implementation across educational and clinical settings are frequently heard [10][11][12]. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines IPE: "(…) students from two or more professions learn [ing] about, from and with each other to enable effective collaboration and improve health outcomes" [4].…”

Ideas for the development of the interprofessional education and practice field: An update

“…Based on the findings from a number of recently updated interprofessional reviews (Reeves, Palaganas, & Zierler, 2015;Reeves, Fletcher et al 2016;Reeves, Pelone et al 2016), it is possible to see that within the empirical literature there has been a continued propensity for colleagues to undertake single institutional studies that gather perceptions-based data in the form of surveys reporting a series of short-term outcomes from IPE and IPP activities. This sustained focus on self-reported data is not surprising given that such data is relatively inexpensive and inclusive (usually providing feedback from all participants of an interprofessional activity).…”

“…Based on a series of systematic, scoping, and narrative reviews of interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional practice (IPP) that had been published at that time, I argued that there were a number of key empirical and theoretical gaps which needed to be filled in order to advance the interprofessional field. Having recently been involved in updating some of these interprofessional reviews (Reeves, Fletcher et al, 2016;Reeves, Palaganas, & Zierler, 2015;Reeves, Pelone, Harrison, Goldman, & Zwarenstein, 2016), it was apparent that the interprofessional literature was expanding at an impressive rate, and that the quality of this published work was improving. As a result of this experience, I thought it would be timely to revisit the 2010 editorial to provide an update on how the interprofessional literature has developed (or not) in the intervening years.…”