Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool Research Articles

Validation of a global scale to assess the quality of interprofessional teamwork in mental health settings

Background: Few scales currently exist to assess the quality of interprofessional teamwork through team members’ perceptions of working together in mental health settings.Aims: The purpose of this study was to revise and validate an interprofessional scale to assess the quality of teamwork in inpatient psychiatric units and to use it multi-nationally.Methods: A literature review was undertaken to identify evaluative teamwork tools and develop an additional 12 items to ensure a broad global focus. Focus group discussions considered adaptation to different care systems using subjective judgements from 11 participants in a pre-test of items. Data quality, construct validity, reproducibility, and internal consistency were investigated in the survey using an international comparative design.Results: Exploratory factor analysis yielded five factors with 21 items: ‘patient/community centred care’, ‘collaborative communication’, ‘interprofessional conflict’, ‘role clarification’, and ‘environment’. High overall internal consistency, reproducibility, adequate face validity, and reasonable construct validity were shown in the USA and Japan.Conclusions: The revised Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT) is a valid measure to assess the quality of interprofessional teamwork in psychiatry and identifies the best strategies to improve team performance. Furthermore, the revised scale will generate more rigorous evidence for collaborative practice in psychiatry internationally.

A review of instruments to measure interprofessional collaboration for chronic disease management for community-living older adults

ABSTRACTIt is acknowledged internationally that chronic disease management (CDM) for community-living older adults (CLOA) is an increasingly complex process. CDM for older adults, who are often living with multiple chronic conditions, requires coordination of various health and social services. Coordination is enabled through interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among individual providers, community organizations, and health sectors. Measuring IPC is complicated given there are multiple conceptualisations and measures of IPC. A literature review of several healthcare, psychological, and social science electronic databases was conducted to locate instruments that measure IPC at the team level and have published evidence of their reliability and validity. Five instruments met the criteria and were critically reviewed to determine their strengths and limitations as they relate to CDM for CLOA. A comparison of the characteristics, psychometric properties, and overall concordance of each instrument with salient attributes of IPC found the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool to be the most appropriate instrument for measuring IPC for CDM in CLOA.

A mixed methods exploration of the team and organizational factors that may predict new graduate nurse engagement in collaborative practice

Although engagement in collaborative practice is reported to support the role transition and retention of new graduate (NG) nurses, it is not known how to promote collaborative practice among these nurses. This mixed methods study explored the team and organizational factors that may predict NG nurse engagement in collaborative practice. A total of 514 NG nurses from Ontario, Canada completed the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool. Sixteen NG nurses participated in follow-up interviews. The team and organizational predictors of NG engagement in collaborative practice were as follows: satisfaction with the team (β = 0.278; p = 0.000), number of team strategies (β = 0.338; p = 0.000), participation in a mentorship or preceptorship experience (β = 0.137; p = 0.000), accessibility of manager (β = 0.123; p = 0.001), and accessibility and proximity of educator or professional practice leader (β = 0.126; p = 0.001 and β = 0.121; p = 0.002, respectively). Qualitative analysis revealed the team facilitators to be respect, team support and face-to-face interprofessional interactions. Organizational facilitators included supportive leadership, participation in a preceptorship or mentorship experience and time. Interventions designed to facilitate NG engagement in collaborative practice should consider these factors.

South Eastern Interprofessional Collaborative Learning Environment (SEIPCLE): Nurturing Collaborative Practice

AbstractBackground: There has been tremendous pressure on Canada’s healthcare system to respond to the increasingly complex health needs of the population despite worsening constraints in financial and human resources. Interprofessional collaborative practice has been seen as an enabler for improving patient care and meeting the current demands on the healthcare system.Methods: The South Eastern Interprofessional Collaborative Learning Environment (SEIPCLE) project, funded by HealthForceOntario, focused on the development and evaluation of the collaborative practice care model in three clinical settings in Southeastern Ontario, Canada. The project was exploratory in nature and used a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests matched with non-equivalent control groups. Several different measures were used, including the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT), an Interprofessional Clinical Education Survey, and a Patient Participation Survey. Quantitative outcome measures were derived from these instruments using factor analysis, and analyzed using regression modelling with co-variates. Focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires provided qualitative data that was coded conceptually and used to complement the results of analyses using quantitative measures. Intervention teams participated in educational components that addressed identified weaknesses in their collaborative practice. Educational components included online modules, workshops, and real-time activities.Findings: Implementation of educational components in the clinical setting posed a number of challenges to reducing the exposure time for some of the intervention teams. Barriers to and enablers of the development of collaborative practice in the healthcare system were identified.Conclusion: Overall, all three intervention teams demonstrated an increase in perceived levels of collaborative practice. Although the results were not statistically significant, the effect, size, and magnitude of change were considered substantial.

Development and pilot testing of the collaborative practice assessment tool

Collaborative practice is receiving increased attention as a model of healthcare delivery that positively influences the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care while improving the work environment of healthcare providers. The collaborative practice assessment tool (CPAT) was developed from the literature to enable interprofessional teams to assess their collaborative practice. The CPAT survey included 56 items across nine domains including: mission and goals; relationships; leadership; role responsibilities and autonomy; communication; decision-making and conflict management; community linkages and coordination; perceived effectiveness and patient involvement; in addition to three open-ended questions. The tool was developed for use in a variety of settings involving a diversity of healthcare providers with the aim of helping teams to identify professional development needs and corresponding educational interventions. The results of two pilot tests indicated that the CPAT is a valid and reliable tool for assessing levels of collaborative practice within teams. This article describes the development of the tool, the pilot testing and validation process, as well as limitations of the tool.