Schmitz Christof, Atzeni Gina, Berchtold Peter
College M (College for Management in Healthcare), Bern, Switzerland.
Institut für Soziologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Germany.
Swiss Med Wkly. 2017 Oct 27;147:w14525. doi: 10.4414/smw.2017.14525. eCollection 2017.
The topic of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) between healthcare professionals has been widely discussed in recent years. Whereas the growing calls for more and better IPC can scarcely be ignored and a broad range of definitions and normative concepts have been proposed, it remains unclear what IPC actually means for practising professionals. This exploratory survey investigated the various ways in which successful IPC is understood in practice. As a main finding of the study, we were able to identify three distinct modes of collaboration between different professions in health care. Moreover, we provide evidence that whether and how IPC occurs strongly depends on the care contexts or settings in which these health professionals work. Explicit acknowledgement of and attention to these findings could improve the impact of initiatives to foster IPC.
近年来,医疗保健专业人员之间的跨专业合作(IPC)话题受到了广泛讨论。尽管越来越多要求加强和改善跨专业合作的呼声不容忽视,并且已经提出了一系列广泛的定义和规范性概念,但跨专业合作对从业专业人员来说究竟意味着什么仍不明确。这项探索性调查研究了在实践中成功的跨专业合作的各种理解方式。作为该研究的主要发现,我们能够确定医疗保健领域不同专业之间三种不同类型的合作模式。此外,我们提供的证据表明,跨专业合作是否发生以及如何发生在很大程度上取决于这些医疗保健专业人员工作的护理环境或场所。明确承认并关注这些发现可以提高促进跨专业合作举措的影响力。