Understanding decision-making in interprofessional team meetings through interpretative repertoires and discursive devices

Unpacking interactions among student teams in a practice-based IPE setting: a qualitative evaluation study

In many healthcare settings, teams change composition regularly, so healthcare students must be trained to function effectively in dynamic teams before entering the workforce. Interprofessional clinical rotations provide an ideal venue for learners to practice these skills, but little is known about how student teams interact in such settings. In this qualitative observational evaluation, learners from multiple health professions at a single institution participated in scheduled clinics in low-income housing communities for older adults. Interprofessional student teams met with program participants for care coordination, health and wellness assessments, and assistance in setting and achieving health goals; team composition changed from week-to-week. A purposive sample was selected from video-recorded encounters between student teams and their program participants. The aim of this study was to explore team interactions and document learner behaviors. Two researchers independently reviewed discrete segments of each video, recorded their observations and reflections, and then the team discussed, categorized, and identified relevant examples of both effective and ineffective behaviors. Four major themes were observed: inclusiveness, leadership, joy of practice, and sharing of clinical knowledge. Students demonstrated both positive and negative examples of behaviors that aligned with each theme. Understanding how students behave on teams in dynamic settings where patient care is taking place can help educators establish practice-based interprofessional education models that better prepare learners to function effectively and strategies that may improve team interactions.

Interprofessional clinical decision-making process in health: A scoping review

AIMS

To describe the key elements of the interprofessional decision-making process in health, based on published scientific studies. To describe the authors, reviews and subject matter of those publications.

DESIGN

Scoping review of the literature.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, APA Psycinfo OpenGrey, Lissa and Cochrane databases were searched in December 2019 and January 2023.

REVIEW METHODS

References were considered eligible if they (i) were written in French or English, (ii) concerned health, (iii) studied a clinical decision-making process, (iv) were performed in an interprofessional context. 'PRISMA-scoping review' guidelines were respected. The eligible studies were analysed and classified by an inductive approach RESULTS: We identified 1429 sources of information, 145 of which were retained for the analysis. Based on these studies, we identified five key elements of interprofessional decision-making in health. The process was found to be influenced by group dynamics, the available information and consideration of the unique characteristics of the patient. An organizational framework and specific training favoured improvements in the process.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making can be based on a willingness of the healthcare organization to promote models based on more shared leadership and to work on professional roles and values. It also requires healthcare professionals trained in the entire continuum of collaborative practices, to meet the unique needs of each patient. Finally, it appears essential to favour the sharing of multiple sources of accessible and structured information. Tools for knowledge formalization should help to optimize interprofessional decision-making in health.

IMPACT

The quality of a team decision-making is critical to the quality of care. Interprofessional decision-making can be structured and improved through different levels of action. These improvements could benefit to patients and healthcare professionals in every settings of care involving care collaboration.

IMPACT STATEMENT

Interprofessional decision-making in health is an essential lever of quality of care, especially for the most complex patients which are a contemporary challenge. This scoping review article offers a synthesis of a large corpus of data published to date about the interprofessional clinical decision-making process in healthcare. It has the potential to provide a global vision, practical data and a list of references to facilitate the work of healthcare teams, organizations and teachers ready to initiate a change.

Ideological dilemmas of healthcare professionals who do not speak up at interprofessional team meetings

In healthcare settings, speaking up is considered essential for patient safety. Indeed, voice opportunities are widely available mandatory mechanisms for speaking up at the routine interprofessional team meetings of our study site. Yet, healthcare professionals in team meetings often do not go beyond straightforward reporting of test results and biomedical-functional parameters, suggesting that members with psycho-social information related to the patient are not participating fully in team meetings. Post-meeting interviews with some of the team members revealed the moments of silence and the ideological contradictions underlying team discussions. We explored silences and contradictions as argumentative meanings inherent in naturally occurring speech. The identification of opposing meanings tells of ideological dilemmas that may explain why healthcare practitioners do not speak up vigorously. We identified three such dilemmas: the ideology of working in teams versus the ideology of working solo; the ideology of autonomy versus the ideology of paternalism; and the ideology of collectivism versus the ideology of individuality. The dilemmas made visible the dimensions of silence as well as silencing as an imposition of silence from above. We suggest focussing on mapping disciplinary and interpretive differences and their effects amongst team members may motivate voice. Further studies should explore the affective dimensions of silence in interprofessional team meetings.