3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Chiropractors in interprofessional practice settings: a narrative review exploring context, outcomes, barriers and facilitators

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          To determine the added value of interprofessional interventions over existing mono-professional practice, elucidation of specific health care issues, service delivery contexts and benefits of combining multiple service provider is required. However, from existing literature, it is difficult to develop a sense of the evidence that supports interprofessional practice initiatives involving chiropractors. This review aims to describe and explore the contexts, outcomes, and barriers and facilitators relating to interprofessional practice involving chiropractors available in current literature. A search of Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases covering the literature from 2005 to October 2021 was conducted, after which a narrative review of identified peer-reviewed articles written in English was performed. We included data from seven studies, conducted across four distinct service delivery contexts. Eight interprofessional practice partners were identified, and eight factors appear to act as barriers and facilitators. Data suggests that incorporating chiropractors into community health and sports medicine interprofessional practice interventions is achievable and appears to impact collaborative practice positively. For older adults with low back pain, quality of life and care-related satisfaction are potential relevant outcomes for the evaluation of interprofessional practice interventions. There is currently very limited evidence from which to judge the value of interprofessional practice interventions, as available literature appears to focus mainly on interprofessional collaboration. Studies conducted specifically to evaluate interprofessional practice solutions and addressing specific health care issues or practice domains are urgently required.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

          Poor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can negatively affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. To assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to change IPC, compared to no intervention or to an alternate intervention, on one or more of the following primary outcomes: patient satisfaction and/or the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care provided. Secondary outcomes include the degree of IPC achieved. We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (2000-2007), MEDLINE (1950-2007) and CINAHL (1982-2007). We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1999 to 2007) and reference lists of the five included studies. Randomised controlled trials of practice-based IPC interventions that reported changes in objectively-measured or self-reported (by use of a validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and/or health status outcomes and/or healthcare process outcomes and/or measures of IPC. At least two of the three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. One author extracted data from and assessed risk of bias of included studies, consulting with the other authors when necessary. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in relation to clinical settings, interventions and outcome measures. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format. Five studies met the inclusion criteria; two studies examined interprofessional rounds, two studies examined interprofessional meetings, and one study examined externally facilitated interprofessional audit. One study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in inpatient medical wards at an acute care hospital showed a positive impact on length of stay and total charges, but another study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in a community hospital telemetry ward found no impact on length of stay. Monthly multidisciplinary team meetings improved prescribing of psychotropic drugs in nursing homes. Videoconferencing compared to audioconferencing multidisciplinary case conferences showed mixed results; there was a decreased number of case conferences per patient and shorter length of treatment, but no differences in occasions of service or the length of the conference. There was also no difference between the groups in the number of communications between health professionals recorded in the notes. Multidisciplinary meetings with an external facilitator, who used strategies to encourage collaborative working, was associated with increased audit activity and reported improvements to care. In this updated review, we found five studies (four new studies) that met the inclusion criteria. The review suggests that practice-based IPC interventions can improve healthcare processes and outcomes, but due to the limitations in terms of the small number of studies, sample sizes, problems with conceptualising and measuring collaboration, and heterogeneity of interventions and settings, it is difficult to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPC and its effectiveness. More rigorous, cluster randomised studies with an explicit focus on IPC and its measurement, are needed to provide better evidence of the impact of practice-based IPC interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These studies should include qualitative methods to provide insight into how the interventions affect collaboration and how improved collaboration contributes to changes in outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update).

            The delivery of effective, high-quality patient care is a complex activity. It demands health and social care professionals collaborate in an effective manner. Research continues to suggest that collaboration between these professionals can be problematic. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve interprofessional collaboration and patient care. To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific education interventions; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention. For this update we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 2006 to 2011. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (2006 to 2011), reference lists of all included studies, the proceedings of leading IPE conferences, and websites of IPE organisations. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client or healthcare process outcomes. At least two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. For included studies, at least two review authors extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format. This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care. This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              Working on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration

              Professionals in healthcare are increasingly encouraged to work together. This has acted as a catalyst for research on interprofessional collaboration. Authors suggest developing interprofessional collaboration is not just the job of managers and policy makers; it also requires active contributions of professionals. Empirical understanding of whether professionals make such contributions and if so, how and why, remains fragmented. This systematic review of 64 studies from the past 20 years shows there is considerable evidence for professionals actively contributing to interprofessional collaboration. Although the evidence is limited, we can show they do so in three distinct ways: by bridging professional, social, physical and task-related gaps, by negotiating overlaps in roles and tasks, and by creating spaces to be able to do so. Professionals from different professions seem to make different contributions. Moreover, differences exist between collaborative settings and healthcare subsectors. We conclude by proposing a research agenda to advance our understanding of these contributions in theoretical, methodological and empirical ways.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cmyburgh@health.sdu.dk
                solvejt@live.dk
                k-engquist@hotmail.com
                evl@bib.sdu.dk
                Journal
                Chiropr Man Therap
                Chiropr Man Therap
                Chiropractic & Manual Therapies
                BioMed Central (London )
                2045-709X
                16 December 2022
                16 December 2022
                2022
                : 30
                : 56
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.10825.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 0728 0170, Department of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, , University of Southern Denmark, ; Odense, Denmark
                [2 ]GRID grid.10825.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 0728 0170, Chiropractic Knowledge Hub, , University of Southern Denmark, ; Odense, Denmark
                [3 ]GRID grid.412988.e, ISNI 0000 0001 0109 131X, Department of Chiropractic, , University of Johannesburg, ; Johannesburg, South Africa
                [4 ]GRID grid.10825.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 0728 0170, University Library of Southern Denmark, , University of Southern Denmark, ; Odense, Denmark
                [5 ]GRID grid.10825.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 0728 0170, The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, , University of Southern Denmark, ; Odense, Denmark
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7741-1313
                Article
                461
                10.1186/s12998-022-00461-1
                9758896
                36527090
                74618152-bfa5-473c-a2a0-c759f5701260
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 8 August 2022
                : 12 November 2022
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2022

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                interprofessional practice,chiropractic,review
                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                interprofessional practice, chiropractic, review

                Comments

                Comment on this article