Healthcare professionals' perceptions of the pre-requisites and realisation of interprofessional collaboration in cancer care

Interprofessional education in cancer care - a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Comprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care.

METHODS

The JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care.

RESULTS

Of the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals' self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.

Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams in a Regional Cancer Institute: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

OBJECTIVES

Oncology is a rapidly changing clinical setting. Research has shown improved patient outcomes and staff satisfaction following interprofessional collaborative education, but there has been limited research on perceptions of interprofessional collaboration among oncology health care professionals. The aims of this study were to: 1) assess attitudes of health care professionals toward interprofessional teams in oncology care, and 2) assess for differences in attitudes across various demographic and workplace groups.

DATA SOURCES

The research design was an electronic cross-sectional survey. The main instrument utilized was the Attitudes Toward Interprofessional Health Care Teams (ATIHCT) survey. A total of 187 oncology health care professionals from a regional New England cancer institute completed the survey. The ATIHCT mean score was high (M = 4.07, SD = 0.51). Analysis revealed statistically significant differences in mean score among participant age groups (P = .03). Significant differences (P = .01) were also noted between different professional groups and their time constraints sub-scale score on the ATIHCT scale. A higher mean score occurred in participants who had a current certification (M = 4.13, SD = 0.50) compared to those without (M = 4.05, SD = 0.46).

CONCLUSION

High overall scores in attitudes toward health care teams suggest that cancer care settings are primed for interprofessional care model implementation. Future studies should examine strategies to improve attitudes among specific groups.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Nurses are in a position to lead interprofessional teamwork in the clinical setting. Further research is necessary to examine best collaborative models in health care to support interprofessional teamwork.

Factors That Affect Knowledge-Sharing Behaviors in Medical Imaging Departments in Cancer Centers: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Knowledge management plays a significant role in health care institutions. It consists of 4 processes: knowledge creation, knowledge capture, knowledge sharing, and knowledge application. The success of health care institutions relies on effective knowledge sharing among health care professionals, so the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing must be identified and understood. Medical imaging departments play a key role in cancer centers. Therefore, an understanding of the factors that affect knowledge sharing in medical imaging departments should be sought to increase patient outcomes and reduce medical errors.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge-sharing behaviors in medical imaging departments and identify the differences between medical imaging departments in general hospitals and cancer centers.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search in PubMed Central, EBSCOhost (CINAHL), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Elsevier (Scopus), ProQuest, and Clarivate (Web of Science) in December 2021. Relevant articles were identified by examining the titles and abstracts. In total, 2 reviewers independently screened the full texts of relevant papers according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that investigated the facilitators and barriers that affect knowledge sharing. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles and narrative synthesis to report the results.

RESULTS

A total of 49 articles were selected for the full in-depth analysis, and 38 (78%) studies were included in the final review, with 1 article added from other selected databases. There were 31 facilitators and 10 barriers identified that affected knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments. These facilitators were divided according to their characteristics into 3 categories: individual, departmental, and technological facilitators. The barriers that hindered knowledge sharing were divided into 4 categories: financial, administrative, technological, and geographical barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlighted the factors that influenced knowledge-sharing practices in medical imaging departments in cancer centers and general hospitals. In terms of the facilitators and barriers to knowledge sharing, this study shows that these are the same in medical imaging departments, whether in general hospitals or cancer centers. Our findings can be used as guidelines for medical imaging departments to support knowledge-sharing frameworks and enhance knowledge sharing by understanding the facilitators and barriers.

Association between work empowerment and interprofessional collaboration among health care professionals working in cancer care settings

This study aimed to analyze work-related empowerment and interprofessional collaboration and to identify possible associations among healthcare professionals working in cancer care settings. A cross-sectional survey design was employed in this study. Healthcare professionals (n = 175) in one Finnish Cancer Center participating in the care of patients with cancer at least on a monthly basis took part in the study. The data were collected with three instruments: Interprofessional Collaboration and Leadership, Performance of an Empowered Personnel (PEN), and Work-related Empowerment Promoting Factors (WEP). The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics, Pearson and Spearman's correlation coefficients and multivariate analysis using generalized liner models. Healthcare professionals rated their work empowerment as rather high. Performance of an Empowered Personnel (PEN) was perceived as high (mean 4.08, SD 0.47). Promoting factors for Work Empowerment (WEP) were also assessed as high (mean 3.98, SD 0.61). Interprofessional collaboration in the cancer care setting was perceived as moderate (mean 2.94, SD 0.36). Managerial position explained work empowerment based on multivariate analysis. Work empowerment and interprofessional collaboration had a strong correlation. The results can be used in the leadership and management of interprofessional collaboration and in developing new structures to support health professionals' work empowerment. In the future, work empowerment needs to be promoted by constructing solutions and practices that support interprofessional collaboration and thus improve the quality of cancer care.

Work empowerment among cancer care professionals: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

There is a growing understanding that empowerment of interprofessional personnel is linked to job satisfaction levels and quality of care, but little is known about empowerment in the context of cancer care. This study describes how interprofessional cancer care personnel perceive their performance and factors that promote work empowerment.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study enrolled 475 (45.2%) of the 1050 employees who work at a regional cancer centre. The participants used two self-administered questionnaires - the Performance of an Empowered Personnel (PEN) questionnaire and Work Empowerment Promoting Factors (WEP) questionnaire - to report perceptions of work empowerment. Both questionnaires' categories comprise moral principles, personal integrity, expertise, future orientation, and sociality. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, Versions 24 and 25.

RESULTS

Overall, the performance of work empowerment was evaluated as being rather high (overall sum score mean: 4.05; range: 3.51-4.41; scale: 1-5). The category that rated highest was moral principles (4.41), and the one rated lowest was the social category (3.51). The factors that promoted work empowerment also ranked high (3.93; range: 3.55-4.08; scale: 1-5), with personal integrity (4.08) the highest and future orientation (3.55) the lowest. Performance and factors that promoted work empowerment correlated positively, moderately, and highly statistically significantly (r = 0.531; p < 0.001). Statistically significant associations also were found between empowered performance of personnel and empowerment promoting factors (sex, education, leadership position, belonging to an interprofessional team, and time elapsed since training in interprofessional cooperation).

CONCLUSION

The personnel rated their performance and the factors perceived to promote work empowerment rather highly. Personal empowerment can be promoted through teamwork training and supportive management in interprofessional cancer care.