How are Certified Child Life Specialists perceived by healthcare professionals?: A call for interprofessional collaboration

Child life specialist services, practice, and utilization across health care: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review was to map the available evidence regarding the scope of child life specialist services, practice, and utilization.

INTRODUCTION

The concept of child life services began in 1922 and emerged as the child life specialist services specialty in the United States in the 1970s and 1980s. Child life specialists are members of multidisciplinary health care system teams who prioritize the developmental needs of pediatric patients to support and improve patient and family health care experiences. Evidence of the effectiveness of child life specialist services and the utilization of those services is often incorporated in multidisciplinary research reports and thus overlooked.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

All quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research study reports and systematic reviews investigating child life specialist services, practice, and utilization in health care systems were included.

METHODS

This review was guided by the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and a published a priori protocol. CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, and PsycINFO (APA) were searched for evidence published from January 1980 to August 2022.

RESULTS

Research publications about child life specialist services, practice, and utilization have increased dramatically over the past decade, with more than 50% of studies published in the past 5 years. Although the first authors of the majority of the research publications were physicians, these multidisciplinary author teams depicted child life specialist services in a variety of roles, including co-investigators, interventionists, and research subjects. The 105 full-text publications reviewed were from 9 countries, plus 1 publication that surveyed people across Europe. The contexts spanned a wide scope of clinical settings and medical subspecialties, but primarily in hospitals and health centers, and to a lesser extent, in ambulatory clinics and communities. A wide variety of child life specialist services were described across these settings.

CONCLUSION

Mapping the research can help delineate the barriers and facilitators to child life specialist services in health care systems. This scoping review provides evidence of the global diffusion of child life specialist services across health care system settings, with recent increases in research publications involving child life specialist services.

Inpatient Care Team Views on Child Life Services: A Scoping Review

CONTEXT

The utilization of Child Life Services is influenced by interprofessional collaboration and perceptions of other members of the medical team.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize studies which address pediatric health care team perspectives on Child Life Services and their utilization in the hospital setting.

DATA SOURCES

A comprehensive literature search was conducted with controlled vocabularies and key terms in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

Primary studies published before November 2021 were screened using a predetermined set of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

DATA CHARTING

Data charting was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Data extracted include baseline study characteristics, common themes, main outcomes, strengths, and limitations. Because this is not a systematic review, data from included studies was not quantitatively analyzed, but carefully summarized in the manner of a standard scoping review.

RESULTS

Nine studies met criteria for inclusion. Common qualitative themes on certified child life specialists include: (1) their broad responsibilities, (2) their positive impact on patients and families, (3) challenges with interprofessional collaboration and integration, and (4) the value of educating others on their roles and responsibilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical subject headings, controlled vocabulary, or other standardized subject headings that index literature on Child Life Services is limited. However, the existing body of literature supports the positive impact certified child life specialists have on patients and families, despite challenges with complete integration into the interdisciplinary care team. Additional research is required to fully understand and overcome these challenges in continued efforts to further drive patient and family-centered care.

Following Interprofessional Education: Health Education Students' Experience in a Primary Interprofessional Care Setting

Background

There is an accelerating need for interprofessional education (IPE) in the Public Health field, as healthcare providers become diverse and multi-disciplinary. Public Health students with health education concentration at Qatar University are required to join training sessions in IPE before the start of their field experience, where students are placed in a variety of community-based and clinical settings including, but not limited to, primary healthcare.

Purpose

The goal of this qualitative research study is to understand health education students' experience in interprofessional care during their field experience in a primary healthcare setting and to highlight the successes and challenges.

Patients and Methods

Participants were third-year health education students (N = 22) enrolled in the Public Health program at Qatar University who obtained their experiential learning in three different primary health care centers. Students' weekly reports reflecting on primary interprofessional care were included in the analysis for the purpose of this study. Following constant comparative techniques, thematic analysis was conducted on health education students' reports.

Results

Interprofessional care was witnessed and practiced by students in teamwork and collaboration for the benefit of the patient, communication among health care professionals and referral process and patient flow. Health education students understood their role in interprofessional care in the fields of behavior change, and patient education and empowerment. However, professionals and patients were not recognizing health educators' role and were not familiar with their contributions to interprofessional care in primary healthcare. Students suggested delivering interprofessional education for health care providers to enhance collaborative teamwork and promote knowledge about the evolving health education field among healthcare providers in Qatar. In addition, they recommended orienting their training supervisors about the goal of IPE-based practice in a primary healthcare setting.

Conclusion

Interprofessional care was observed and practiced by health education students through collaborative teamwork, communication among health care professionals and management of patient flow. However, they faced challenges during their practice-based IPE. The findings can be tailored towards planning for interprofessional education workshops to boost collaboration progress among health care providers including health educators and supporting professionals interested to implement practice-based IPE in their placement curriculums.