Towards Continuing Interprofessional Education: Interaction patterns of health professionals in a resource-limited setting

Abstract

There are challenges related to collaboration among health professionals in resource-limited settings. Continuing Interprofessional Education initiatives grounded on workplace dynamics, structure and the prevailing attitudes and biases of targeted health professionals may be a vehicle to develop collaboration among health professionals. Workplace dynamics are revealed as health professionals interact. We argue that insights into the interaction patterns of health professionals in the workplace could provide guidance for improving the design and value of CIPE initiative. The study was conducted through rapid ethnography and data were collected from non-participant observations. The data were transcribed and analysed through an inductive iterative process. Appropriate ethical principles were applied throughout the study. Three themes emerged namely “Formed professional identities influencing interprofessional interaction”, “Diversity in communication networks and approaches” and “Professional practice and care in resource limited contexts”. This study revealed poor interaction patterns among health professionals within the workplace. These poor interaction patterns were catalyzed by the pervasive professional hierarchy, the protracted health professional shortages, limited understanding of professional roles and the lack of a common language of communication among the health professionals. Several recommendations were made regarding the design and development of Continuing Interprofessional Education initiatives for resource-limited settings.

Perceptions of interprofessional collaborative practice in South Africa: A systematic review

“…All the studies were conducted in South Africa, as per the inclusion criteria ( Table 3 ). The articles covered two public hospitals (Nyoni, Grobler & Botma 2021 ; Waggie & Arends 2020 ), a community healthcare centre (Kock et al 2021 ), a semi-rural hospital (Maddocks et al 2018 ) and intensive care units (ICUs) in the public and private sectors (Ntinga & Van Aswegen 2020 ).…”

“…All the studies were qualitative in nature with only one study employing a small quantitative component (Ntinga & Van Aswegen 2020 ). Three articles used focus group discussions (Kock et al 2021 ; Ntinga & Van Aswegen 2020 ; Waggie & Arends 2020 ), while Nyoni et al ( 2021 ) employed unstructured observational research and Maddocks et al ( 2018 ) used privately conducted interviews with participants. These types of data collection methods allowed for the in-depth exploration of issues under investigation, making it possible for points to be clarified with follow-up questions, thereby adding richness to the information obtained.…”

“…These types of data collection methods allowed for the in-depth exploration of issues under investigation, making it possible for points to be clarified with follow-up questions, thereby adding richness to the information obtained. Either purposive (Maddocks et al 2018 ; Nyoni et al 2021 ; Waggie & Arends 2020 ) or convenience (Ntinga & Van Aswegen 2020 ; Kock et al 2021 ) sampling techniques were used where researchers relied on voluntary participation of the study subjects.…”

“…All professionals included in the studies were part of interprofessional teams. Three studies included professionals from a range of different professional groups (Kock et al 2021 ; Nyoni et al 2021 ; Waggie & Arends 2020 ). However, it must be kept in mind that one study was an observational study where the authors observed the interaction between professionals from two or more different professions (Nyoni et al 2021 ).…”

“…Three studies included professionals from a range of different professional groups (Kock et al 2021 ; Nyoni et al 2021 ; Waggie & Arends 2020 ). However, it must be kept in mind that one study was an observational study where the authors observed the interaction between professionals from two or more different professions (Nyoni et al 2021 ). One study only involved doctors and physiotherapists (Maddocks et al 2018 ) and another study only examined the perceptions of junior and senior physiotherapists working as part of an interprofessional team in intensive care unit (ICU) facilities at private and public hospitals (Ntinga & Van Aswegen 2020 ).…”