Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jan 6;7(1):7.
doi: 10.1186/s40814-020-00746-3.

Implementation of an interprofessional collaboration in practice program: a feasibility study using social network analysis

Affiliations

Implementation of an interprofessional collaboration in practice program: a feasibility study using social network analysis

Linda C Smit et al. Pilot Feasibility Stud. .

Abstract

Background: Due to multimorbidity and geriatric problems, older people often require both psychosocial and medical care. Collaboration between medical and social professionals is a prerequisite to deliver high-quality care for community-living older people. Effective, safe, and person-centered care relies on skilled interprofessional collaboration and practice. Little is known about interprofessional education to increase interprofessional collaboration in practice (IPCP) in the context of community care for older people. This study examines the feasibility of the implementation of an IPCP program in three community districts and determines its potential to increase interprofessional collaboration between primary healthcare professionals caring for older people.

Method: A feasibility study was conducted to determine the acceptability and feasibility of data collection and analysis regarding interprofessional collaboration in network development. A questionnaire was used to measure the learning experience and the acquisition of knowledge and skills regarding the program. Network development was assessed by distributing a social network survey among professionals attending the program as well as professionals not attending the program at baseline and 5.5 months after. Network development was determined by calculating the number, reciprocity, value, and diversity of contacts between professionals using social network analysis.

Results: The IPCP program was found to be instructive and the knowledge and skills gained were applicable in practice. Social network analysis was feasible to conduct and revealed a spill-over effect regarding network development. Program participants, as well as non-program participants, had larger, more reciprocal, and more diverse interprofessional networks than they did before the program.

Conclusions: This study showed the feasibility of implementing an IPCP program in terms of acceptability, feasibility of data collection, and social network analysis to measure network development, and indicated potential to increase interprofessional collaboration between primary healthcare professionals. Both program participants and non-program participants developed a larger, more collaborative, and diverse interprofessional network.

Keywords: Interprofessional collaboration; Interprofessional education; Primary care; Social Network Analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design and overview of IPCP program
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Diagrammatic representation of the network theory and data collection. Nominated professionals received an email with the social network survey; returning the survey was considered to indicate consent to participate in the study
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Community district collaboration networks before and after the IPCP program. Yellow squares, healthcare professionals in ring 1; green squares, healthcare professionals in ring 2; blue squares, healthcare professionals in ring 3. The larger the square the higher the number of professionals with whom the participant indicated as collaborating with regard care for older people (based on the out-degree of contacts). The black lines reflect a contact between professionals
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Community districts’ collaboration networks of reciprocal contacts. Blue lines, reciprocal contact; red lines, one-sided contact; yellow squares, healthcare professionals in ring 1; green squares, healthcare professionals in ring 2

References

    1. World Health Organization . Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. - PubMed
    1. NIVEL . Zorgregistraties eerste lijn. Chronische ziekten en multimorbiditeit [Chronic diseases and multimorbidity] Utrecht: NIVEL; 2016.
    1. Van Kempen JA, Robben SH, Zuidema SU, Rikkert MGO, Melis RJ, Schers HJ. Home visits for frail older people: a qualitative study on the needs and preferences of frail older people and their informal caregivers. Br J Gen Pract. 2012;62(601):554–560. doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X653606. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. NZa . Monitor Zorg voor Ouderen [Monitoring care for older people] Utrecht: Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit; 2018.
    1. Bookey-Bassett S, Markle-Reid M, Mckey CA, Akhtar-Danesh N. Understanding interprofessional collaboration in the context of chronic disease management for older adults living in communities: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2017;73(1):71–84. doi: 10.1111/jan.13162. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources