Interprofessional Collaboration Between Audiologists, SLPs

Key Points A competent, collaborative, interprofessional team centered on the patient is necessary for quality pain care; however, interprofessional collaborative practice is not yet an integral part of all health professions education programs. Interprofessional education involves 2 or more professions learning "with, from, and about" to enable effective collaborative practice and improve health outcomes. Core competencies and curricular resources are available for interprofessional education and pain and can be adapted for use at all levels of health professions education. 1. Introduction Pain is a complex experience that impacts health, productivity, and well-being. It requires a collaborative team approach with a common language and clear understanding of roles and responsibilities. With few exceptions, a minimum amount of pain content has been documented in health sciences curricula, and much of that has been fragmented by profession and delivered within a crowded agenda of conventional course topics such as anatomy and physiology.21 Most health professionals learn pain management on the job and are often ill-prepared to function as a team member in the real world. Despite documentation of the need for improved education on pain of all types, consistent professional training in pain is not widespread and innovation is warranted. The 2018 IASP Global Year for Excellence in Pain Education is a call to action on multiple levels. The purpose of this report is to describe opportunities for mutual learning through interprofessional (IP) pain education. Interprofessional education (IPE) is a growing trend across health professions and has been defined (Table 1) as when 2 or more professions learn with, from, and about each other to improve collaboration and the quality of care.16 For IP learning to occur, all 3 "with, from, and about" must be present.11Table 1: Operational definitions.2. With others–learning together to facilitate interprofessional collaborative practice The complexity of health care across the globe, technological advances, and modern models of care delivery has created demand for a practice-ready workforce and effective teamwork.31 Medical errors often result from poor communication within and across teams; high functioning teams improve outcomes of care.18 Professional education has not kept pace with increasing demands for collaboration-ready health workers in part because of disjointed, outdated, and static curricula; furthermore, a glaring mismatch of competencies to patient and population needs persists.12 We educate students most often in uniprofessional settings (silos) with little opportunity to learn and practice together. Although learning experiences in the clinic or on a ward offer more opportunities to learn with, from, and about other health care professionals, there may be few role model IP teams in the real environment. Uniprofessional education is inadequate to prepare health care trainees to work in teams and can spur competition rather than cooperation between the professions. Recognizing this struggle, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued a Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice in 2010.34 The report contextualizes existing health systems, commits to implementing principles of IPE and collaborative practice, and champions the benefits of IP collaborations with regional partners, educators, and health workers. Contemporaneously, the Lancet Commissions issued a foundational report12 developed by 20 health profession leaders from diverse countries advancing a common strategy for educational reform in medicine, nursing, and public health. The Lancet Commission calls for education reform that is guided by the desired outcomes of transformative learning and interdependence in education. Transformative learning involves fundamental shifts from fact memorization to synthesis of information for decision making; from seeking professional credentials to achieving core competencies for effective teamwork in health systems; and adaptation of global resources to address local priorities.12 Interdependence stresses the system approach that offers insights into the dynamic and nonlinear nature of a complex system that cannot be gained by studying components of the environment in isolation. This report also underscores the pace, scale, and intensity of globalization impacting interactions of health systems and education. In several countries, collaboration of national associations of health profession regulatory bodies has given rise to recommendations for core competencies for IP collaborative practice designed to guide curriculum development in interactive learning. For example, competencies16 developed by the Interprofessional Education Collaborative (IPEC) in the United States have become part of the global conversation (Table 2). The Global Forum on Innovation in Health Professional Education has hosted a series of meetings engaging stakeholders and policymakers through linked projects and networks in Uganda, South Africa, India, and Europe.8 Updated in 2016, the IPEC competencies integrate explicit population health outcomes with individual care competencies to form an expanded model that targets desirable health system goals. Interprofessional collaboration, in this framework, is the central domain under which the original competencies are arranged. Similarly, the Canadian IP Health Collaborative developed the National Interprofessional Competency Framework in 2010, which has been used in various countries and academic settings.5Table 2: Interprofessional collaborative competency domains.Interprofessional collaboration occurs when learners/practitioners, patients/clients/families, and communities develop and maintain working relationships that enable optimal health outcomes.5 Interprofessional collaborative practice occurs when multiple health workers from different professional backgrounds work together with patients, families, and communities to deliver the highest quality of care. Interprofessional core competencies build on modern educational theory and practice to bring together all health professions with shared language, vision, and goals (Table 3). These competencies are important for positive outcomes, including those we aim for in quality pain care.Table 3: Characteristics of health-focused interprofessional core competencies.10,163. From others—learning from different professions to facilitate collaboration and communication Collaborative approaches are invaluable when pain management is complex, requiring the knowledge and skills of more than one profession. It is logical then, that to work together, future health care workers would benefit from learning together to understand each other's roles and responsibilities and how to communicate using common language. The provision of opportunities for student interaction is fundamental to the learning experience to develop an understanding of the perspective of various professions and to foster a climate of mutual respect and relationship-building values. Interprofessional education requires active learner participation and case-based content that is authentic and foundational to many health professionals.6,26 Although most IPE is focused on prelicensure students, literature is emerging in post graduate clinical education. Themes in the context of back pain in a primary care setting included the context, value of involving the patient, listening, time and learning together.7 The intent is to impact practice and improve quality of health care. 4. About others–attaining competence to use knowledge of one's own role and those of other professions to address pain care needs Pain experience is multidimensional; therefore, pain education draws on not only mechanisms but also a variety of theories such as relational, professionalism, and social constructivism and is grounded in adult learning theory.31,33 The concept of communities of practice and situated learning is also important as students move from learning about their own profession to other professions and members of a team.31 These concepts reinforce a model of multiprofessional team management of pain championed long ago by John Bonica. Learners need to become self-directed, critical thinkers and reflective practitioners, able to function as members of teams, and be good communicators, adaptable to change and continuing to learn through professional experiences.3,22 Interprofessional education is not a replacement for education specific to each profession, a reason to lose individual professional identity, the only innovation needed in the health system, and an end in itself. We do not do IPE for its own sake; we do it to help understand each other's roles and contributions to work together in a real-world practice setting. 5. Barriers to overcome A number of significant barriers must be overcome to successfully implement and sustain a culture of IPE.22,32 Leadership at the highest level is needed for a culture change to be successful. For example, licensure and accreditation requirements do not currently reinforce preparation for collaborative practice in most countries. A survey of 41 countries from WHO's 6 regions representing various income economies reported IPE was often voluntary.27 Moreover, the lack of compulsory IPE and pain competencies for entry-to-practice graduates has implications for advancing skillful and ethical practice; it can limit the capacity of health care professionals to alleviate suffering, foster autonomy, and use resources justly.32 As well, many faculty are trained and familiar with the didactic teacher role rather than how to be an effective IPE facilitator and are not comfortable teaching pain content4; faculty education and development are needed. Faculty and clinician composition in the development and implementation of IPE activities may influence the outcomes of the learning activities.25,33 Evidence is scarce in developing countries, but challenges may be similar including curriculum structure and complexity. It has been suggested that barriers be taken as opportunities to transform approaches to core health problems in developing countries.30 Modifications in physical classroom space, competition for curriculum hours, and coordination of schedules can be challenging. Ideally, students should be introduced to IPE early with learning activities that build on competencies. Curriculum design is an iterative process necessitating modifications of complexity in patient cases and also the challenges of integrating clinical content to meet the needs of all levels of learners.33 Perceived differences in hierarchy, power status, and unequal participation rates among certain health professions have also been described as challenges.24 However, IPE can provide an opportunity to transform the way we socialize students by improving the understanding and respect of each other's unique roles and responsibilities within the team. Of course, the ultimate challenge is to harmonize learning experiences with well-functioning IP teams in clinical practice. Involvement of clinicians in curriculum development and implementation can help to insure real-world pain care and patient-centered modeling.33 6. Defining components of interprofessional education–competencies (learning outcomes), curriculum (learning plans), and content (learning objectives) Competency is the desired outcome of education. Distinct from learning objectives that emphasize gains in factual knowledge, attitudes, and skills, competency places emphasis on students' capacity to act effectively in relevant clinical situations.10 Competency generally includes observable phenomena such as being able to demonstrate the ability to explain a treatment or educate a patient about relevant treatment adverse effects. It also includes appropriate attitudinal and affective qualities to the extent that such are observable, eg, being able to maintain perceptibly compassionate communication while examining a painful part, potentially gauged through the use of interpersonal skills checklists. Core competencies in pain management for health professional education have been established.10 These pain competencies address the fundamental concepts and complexity of pain; how pain is observed and assessed; collaborative approaches to treatment options; and application of competencies across the life span in the context of various settings, populations, and care team models (Fig. 1). A set of values and guiding principles is embedded within each domain. These competencies can serve as a foundation for developing, defining, and revising curricula and as a resource for the creation of IP learning activities across health professions designed to advance care that effectively responds to pain.Figure 1.: Core competencies for pain management. These core competencies pain assessment and management were developed through an interprofessional consensus process10 to address prelicensure pain management education in all major health care professions that are consistent with the IASP pain curricula outlines. Graphic created by Ian Koebner, PhD. Used with permission University of California Regents or Graphic courtesy of University of California Regents.Pain curricula outlines provide the template that helps to structure learning. Curricula include considerations of sequencing material, developmental appropriateness, and coordination of different health professions' learning activities, so that students from different health profession programs will learn about for IPE at the same time. The IASP Pain Curriculum Outlines15 provide recommended curricula for pharmacy, psychology, physical therapy, occupational therapy, nursing, medicine, dentistry, social work, and IPE. Each is arranged to address 4 main domains and related core competencies including (1) the multidimensional nature of pain, (2) pain assessment and measurement, (3) the management of pain, and (4) pain in specific clinical conditions. The outlines are helpful for establishing courses that provide an integrated foundation in pain at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. With this foundation, students are prepared to understand and approach patients with many forms of pain, as well as provide support to families and caregivers. All IASP curricula outlines including IPE were updated in 2017 for the Global Year for Excellence in Pain Education. Content is the description of what is being taught at the most granular level, eg, what are the learning objectives. Content serves as an important common language necessary to effectively communicate with each other about the specific elements of our uniprofessional and IP learning plans. Three teaching modules that address a number of IASP topics and are adaptable for IPE are available on the Portal of Geriatric Online Education (POGOe.org).20 In the United States, the National Institutes of Health has created a freely accessible portal of pain education online learning modules. Based on a variety of local models of IP collaboration, these modules demonstrate that IPE can take various forms depending on the specific professions engaged and the goals for learning.23 A unique and perhaps most comprehensive program is the 20-hour University of Toronto's Pain IP Curriculum involving students from 7 professional programs. The program's design and implementation components are described in the Pain IP Curriculum Model as (1) dynamic, (2) competency-based, (3) interrelated, and (4) collaborative with the patient focus at the center.33 Experience with the program has informed the creation of an eLearning Pain Education Interprofessional Resource that is internet accessible and available on request.19 As a blended eLearning program, Pain Education Interprofessional Resource has been designed as a self-learning resource to be coupled with facilitated small group, IP, collaborative discussion. 7. Outcomes of interprofessional education Measuring outcomes of IPE can be quite challenging. Large gaps regarding methods, theory, and context remain, and most studies focus on short-term results. The heterogeneity of contexts, variety of interventions, and methodological limitations makes it difficult to draw generalizable inferences about key elements and effectiveness of IPE.17,26 Evaluation should ideally link to clinical practice, but there is a paucity of contextually and synthesized literature regarding outcomes, particularly for pain management.24 University-based IPE using patient scenarios and group work in small teams, as contrasted to didactic lectures, has been shown to be feasible and has led to improved attitudes toward IP interaction and teamwork and improved understanding of health professional roles.24 Studies of IPE have found differences between professions, with students in professions deemed psychosocial were more positive about IPE than students in biomedical career tracks.13 Similarly, Erickson et al.9 found that IP mentorship and group participation improved first year medical students' pain management skills but did not have the same effect on fourth year nursing student performance. Differences were attributed in part to experience in clinical settings but also suggested that combining different levels of students is acceptable if they are of similar age and life experience. A significant positive shift in the pain knowledge and attitudes toward collaboration has been demonstrated through IPE.14,28 Simko et al.29 reported an increased knowledge and understanding of the importance of other profession's role in pain management in an IPE course for nursing and pharmacy students. Other studies have reported high student satisfaction and significant improvement in self-efficacy1 as well as respect for each other's roles and responsibilities.2 Positive changes have also been reported in pain assessment and documentation behaviors from IPE.17 8. Summary The delivery of effective pain management can be complex, requiring collaborative, team approaches that exceed the expertise of any one profession. Interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognized as a core skill for all clinicians and is beginning to be required by some accrediting bodies for medical, nursing, pharmacy, physician assistant, and social work programs. However, IP collaborative practice is not yet an integral part of all health professions education programs. Recommendations of the WHO34 and other leading organizations recognize IP collaborative practice and education as a central component of transformative improvements in health care. Based on work in a number of global settings, recommendations for educational change to incorporate IP collaboration into practice are available and undergoing further development. Creating IPE learning opportunities is important. The intent of IPE is to produce a collaborative practice-ready workforce to improve the quality of health care. Students should be introduced to IPE early and have developmentally appropriate opportunities throughout a curriculum program. Students can change agents in the real world to continuously improve the way health professionals work together, mentor students and improve the quality of pain care. The quality and rigor of IPE research is inadequate, and research needs to move beyond feasibility and attitudes toward long-term improvements in clinical care. When focused on pain, IPE is likely to provide substantive benefits in the real-world practice setting, but barriers to IPE adoption, including slow adoption of pain-focused competencies and cultural habits, limit uptake. When able to overcome these obstacles, IPE has the capacity to harmonize learning experiences and promote patient-centered socialization of health profession trainees at all levels. Importantly, communicating and assessing innovation in IPE relies on understanding the conceptual education framework built on key elements of competencies (learning outcomes), curriculum (learning plans), and content (learning objectives). Although more work is needed to identify the most effective approaches, and even fundamentally to define meaningful approaches to outcomes assessment, models of education such as IP workshop training and online education exist with positive impact. We leave readers with a brief table of actions they can take to advance and transform health professions' education (Table 4).Table 4: Suggested actions individuals can take to promote IPE.Disclosures The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. D.B. Gordon and B. Hogans hold positions of leadership in their University's NIH Pain Consortium designated Centers of Excellence in Pain Education (CoEPEs). J.Watt-Watson is a principal leader in the University of Toronto's IP curriculum program.

Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are required to acquire critical knowledge, skills, and clinical experience to serve English learners (ELs) in school settings with disabilities in language, learning, and literacy. To provide students with appropriate academic and clinical preparation, three colleges at the University of Central Florida (Health & Public Affairs, Education and Human Performance, and Arts and Humanities) collaborated to create a new interdisciplinary specialization in school speech-language pathology. This specialization focused on English Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) standards and competencies to address the needs of ELs and provide educationally relevant experiences for students. Interprofessional education (IPE) and collaborative practice (IPP) frameworks guided the development of clinically oriented academic coursework and internships to prepare SLPs to integrate evidenced-based training with practice. This qualitative study examined the perceptions of 40 graduate students, who participated in a personnel preparation program focused on preparing SLPs to work with ELs and ELs with a communication disorder.

This study aims to provide insight into speech-language pathologists’ experiences of and preparation for interprofessional collaborative practice across various settings and geographical locations in the United States. We disseminated an online survey via Qualtrics© to reach a representative sample of speech-language pathologists. We questioned respondents about the extend to which they engage in interprofessional collaborative practice, professionals with whom they engage in interprofessional collaborative practice, preparation for interprofessional collaborative practice, and barriers to engaging in interprofessional collaborative practice. Responses from 296 participants were analyzed to describe details regarding speech-language pathologists’ experiences in interprofessional collaboration. Quantitative data included means, ranges, standard deviations, and frequency counts. Open-ended responses underwent analysis through a consensual qualitative approach. Most speech-language pathologists in this study (59%) reported feeling prepared for interprofessional collaboration. Participants reported that they engage in interprofessional collaborative practice with other professionals from disciplines such as nursing, occupational therapy, teaching, physical therapy, and school psychology. To best prepare students for future speech-language pathology practice, participants recommended that students engage in interprofessional education to learn about collaborating with these disciplines. These results could have implications for future design and implementation of interprofessional education activities for students and practicing clinicians.

Research focus has transitioned from interprofessional collaborative practice among qualified health practitioners to the involvement of pre-qualifying students in practicing interprofessional education. It is essential to establish outcome measures to enhance the seamless integration of interprofessional education and collaborative practice. The aim of this study was to develop a culturally appropriate quality measure for assessing interprofessional education and collaborative practice for health practitioners and students in Indonesia by performing cross-cultural validation of the collaborative practice assessment tool (CPAT). The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) standards of psychometric properties were used to guide the study. The evaluation of the psychometric properties was conducted, involving meticulous structural validity evaluation based on a three-step factorial analysis (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis) and measurement invariance. The parameters analyzed were related to the design requirements of a measure (i.e., targeted population, study sample, and size), the internal structure (structural validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariances), and hypotheses testing for construct validity based on a validated conceptual framework. This study involved 266 practitioners and 232 students. The COSMIN standards for general design requirements were fulfilled. Structural validity confirmed the 7-factor of 48-item structure; measurement invariances indicated configural, metric, and scalar invariants in both practitioner and student cohorts. Construct validity was confirmed by meeting the COSMIN requirement, with over 75% of the tested hypotheses accepted. In conclusion, the findings suggest the newly validated Indonesian CPAT has good psychometric properties concerning internal structure (i.e., structural validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariance) and hypotheses testing, and is therefore a quality measure for assessing interprofessional education and collaborative practice with health practitioners and students in Indonesia.

Observation of interprofessional collaborative practice in primary care teams: An integrative literature review.

Grant agencies award millions to support groundbreaking research in communication sciences and disorders. To find out what’s around the bend in CSD, sample some of the largest of these grant-funded investigations.

Mapping Collective Sensemaking in Communication: The Interprofessional Patient Case Review in Acute Care Rounds

Framing the Future: Exploring Inter-Professional Education and Practice in an Undergraduate Course

Purpose: Discuss the challenges in delivering interprofessional education and clinical practice in community-based settings. Background: Implementing interprofessional education (IPE) and clinical practice (IPCP) programs remains challenging despite increased emphasis on IPE. Understanding the challenges in delivering IPE/IPCP community-based programs is important in developing a well-trained interprofessional workforce. Description of Program: IPE curricula was developed for two community-based IPCP experiences using a flexible framework for negotiating unforeseen challenges working with multiple health professions schools and community partners. Models utilized were a community of practice that allowed for shared interests, learning, and problem-solving, and Plan-Do-Study-Act that provides flexibility as challenges arise. Cohorts of 10-15 graduate students from nursing, pharmacy, dentistry, clinical psychology and social work attended 8-week IPE immersion experience with practicum using a humanities-informed curriculum. One project focused on improved interpersonal communication and the other on military culture and the unique behavioral health issues of veterans. Challenges include scheduling difficulties, apathy of faculty and students, and incompatible clinical practice experiences. Preliminary results: Students’ gained confidence as members of IPCP teams and are more reflective and able to anticipate and cope with adverse and challenging situations through learning to manage negative emotions and stress. The humanities-informed content has increased students’ ability to be more empathic and to communicate more effectively with patients and the interprofessional team. Recommendations: Despite well-intentioned plans, there are circumstances that require IPE faculty to discuss and negotiate solutions for overcoming challenges. Open communication among all parties is critical in community-based IPE/IPCP experiences. When faculty are adaptable and responsive to change, students adapt as well, and learn that flexibility is essential for development of an effective and productive health professional team. Measurable Objectives: Discuss methods for negotiating challenges in community-based interprofessional education programs. Discuss how humanities-informed curricula can assist with teaching the interprofessional core competencies.

Purpose: This study examined the models of collaboration used by school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) during the provision of special education services including factors predicting use of the interprofessional collaborative practice (IPP) model and barriers to collaboration.Method: School-based SLPs responded to a survey on models of collaboration within their work setting. Anchored vignettes were created to determine their engagement in 3 different models (i.e., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional) used in the provision of special education services during evaluation and intervention. Predictive factors supporting and/or hindering the use of IPP were identified.Results: Results demonstrated low percentages of school-based SLPs engaging in IPP during initial evaluations (8%), eligibility meetings (43%), and intervention sessions (14%). Three factors predicted use of IPP in schools: prior training in collaboration, years of experience, and educational setting. The most frequently cited barriers to SLPs’ engagement in collaboration included time constraints/scheduling (48%), resistance from other professionals (23%), and lack of support from employers/administration (11%).Conclusions: The results of the current study indicated that systemic change is needed at both the university and public school levels. At the university level, preprofessional students need collaborative learning opportunities that are integrated across programs and colleges. School-based SLPs and other education professionals could benefit from job-embedded learning focused on IPP to increase their knowledge and engagement in IPP and improve student outcomes.Supplemental Material S1. Survey questions. Pfeiffer, D. L., Pavelko, S. L., Hahs-Vaughn, D. L., & Dudding, C. C. (2019). A national survey of speech-language pathologists' engagement in inter professional collaborative practice in schools: Identifying predictive factors and barriers to implementation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0100

Background: There is currently a resurgence of interest in interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) and its potential to positively impact health outcomes at both the patient level and population level, healthcare delivery, and health professions education. This resurgence of interest led to the creation of the National Center on Interprofessional Collaborative Practice and Education in October 2012. Methods: This paper describes three intertwined knowledge generation strategies of the National Center on Interprofessional Practice and Education: (1) the development of a Nexus Incubator Network, (2) the undertaking of comparative effectiveness research, and (3) the creation of a National Center Data Repository. Results: As these strategies are implemented over time they will result in the production of empirically grounded knowledge regarding the direction and scope of the impact, if any, of IPECP on well-defined health and healthcare outcomes including the possible improvement of the patient experience of care. Conclusions: Among the motivating factors for the National Center and the three strategies adopted and addressed herein is the need for rigorously produced, scientifically sound evidence regarding IPECP and whether or not it has the capacity to positively affect the patient experience of care, the health of populations, and the per capita cost of healthcare.

In Australia, a national approach to accreditation of programs and regulation of health professions was adopted a decade ago. Accreditation standards and regulatory frameworks can drive change and provide support for interprofessional education and collaborative practice. There is a commonly held belief among Australian academics involved in health professional education, that accreditation and practice standards provide system-level support for interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice. Using a purpose-designed analysis framework and scoring scheme, we analyzed standards of accreditation and practice for 29 regulated, self-regulated and member health professions in Australia to determine the extent and accountability of statements related to interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice. Currently, in Australia, there is a fragmented and inconsistent approach to interprofessional education and interprofessional collaboration evident in accreditation and practice standards and, in general, there are more explicit requirements in standards of the regulated health professions. However, overall the concepts of interprofessional education and interprofessional practice are ill-defined and statements lack accountability and/or outcome measures. Our analysis provides a foundation for reform of Australian standards and an approach for analysis of accreditation and practice standards which may be useful in other jurisdictions.

Answers to Your DSM-5 Questions

Interprofessional Education (IPE) and Interprofessional Collaborative Practice (IPCP) have become essential educational approaches to improve the collaboration system and quality of health services. This study aims to provide an overview of the IPE/IPCP implementation strategy focusing on achieving core competencies and their outcomes. The narrative literature review study preferred the PRISMA model approach. The articles were analyzed from three electronic databases, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and PubMed. The search keywords used “Healthcare professional” AND “Interprofessional practice” OR “interprofessional education” AND “Nursing education” AND “Improved competencies” with the study criteria involved students or health professionals, last ten years, English version, and used experimental or observational, mixed methods design. A total of 14 articles met the criteria and were summarised. As a result, the IPE/IPCP implementation strategies with simulation, curriculum, and training focused on the main competencies produced essential outcomes, including increasing knowledge, skills, positive attitudes, and perceptions of students and health professionals and improving the quality of patient care. IPE/IPCP strategies such as an integrated curriculum, simulation, and training program were recommended for implementation in the institution or clinical setting. Sustainable IPE/IPCP strategies and outcomes are essential in promoting collaborative practice and quality healthcare. Keywords: Healthcare professionals; collaboration; nursing curriculum; higher education; quality of care

Background Healthcare is provided by a variety of different professionals, including pharmacists who are integral members of the team, and all are expected to work collaboratively to provide quality care. Little is known about the perceptions of pharmacists in Qatar towards interprofessional collaboration. Positive attitudes towards interprofessional education are essential to successful implementation of interprofessional collaboration. Therefore, to develop effective collaboration strategies in practice settings, it was essential to survey the attitudes of practising pharmacists towards collaboration. Objective To explore the awareness, views, attitudes and perceptions of practising pharmacists in Qatar towards interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Setting Community, hospital and primary healthcare settings in Qatar. Methods This was a two-staged sequential explanatory mixed method design. It utilised a quantitative survey (Stage 1), based on a modified version of the Readiness for Interprofessional Learning Scale. This was followed by a qualitative stage, utilising focus groups (Stage 2). Main outcome measures (1) Qatar pharmacists' attitudes towards interprofessional education and collaborative practice; (2) Practising pharmacists' perspectives in relation to enablers, barriers and recommendations regarding interprofessional education and collaborative practice. Results 63% of the practising pharmacists (n = 178) responded to the survey. Three focus groups followed (total n = 14). High scores indicating readiness and positive attitudes towards interprofessional education were reported for pharmacists working in hospital, community and primary healthcare settings. Qualitative analysis identified three overarching themes in relation to the enablers, barriers and recommendations for practising pharmacists working collaboratively. The enabling themes were: professional and patient related benefits, and current positive influences in Qatar; the barriers were patients' negative perceptions; the status of the pharmacy profession and current working practices and processes; the recommendations related to improving patients' perceptions about pharmacists and enhancing the status of pharmacy profession in Qatar. The findings from this study highlighted two major observations: the lack of existence of collaborative practice and hierarchy and power play. Conclusion Pharmacists demonstrated willingness and readiness to develop interprofessional learning and collaborative practice with significant steps already taken towards improving collaborative working practices in different care settings.