Ethical challenges of integration across primary and secondary care: a qualitative and normative analysis

Ethical challenges and principles in integrated care

INTRODUCTION

Integrated care is an established approach to delivery in parts of the healthcare infrastructure, and an ideal which, it is claimed, should be realized system-wide. Its ethical weight derives from its defence of a view about how healthcare ought to operate. Although the goal of integration is laudable, it is ethically and practically complex, involving trade-offs.

SOURCES OF DATA

Considerable evidence attests to widespread enthusiasm for integration, given the need to prevent harm and extend the reach of scarce resources. Equally, evidence increasingly highlights the obstacles to successfully translating this ideal into practice.

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

The principle that healthcare should be seamless, ensuring that patients do not come to harm through gaps in care enjoys broad agreement. There is a similar consensus that placing the patient's perspective at the centre of decision-making is vital, since this enables identification of these gaps.

AREAS OF CONTROVERSY

Integrating care by making it seamless entails blurring boundaries of care domains. This risks undermining the locus of responsibility for care decisions via confusion about who has ownership of specialist knowledge where domains overlap. There is a lack of consensus about how successful integration should be measured.

GROWING POINTS

More research into the relative cost-effectiveness of upstream public health investment in preventing chronic ill-health caused by modifiable lifestyle factors vs integrating care for people already ill; further research into ethical implications of integration in practice, which can be obscured by the simplicity of the fundamental normative principle guiding integration in theory.

Intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Residents need to be trained across the boundaries of their own specialty to prepare them for collaborative practice. Intraprofessional learning (i.e. between individuals of different disciplines within the same profession) has received little attention in the postgraduate medical education literature, in contrast to the extensive literature on interprofessional learning between individuals of different professions. To address this gap, we performed a scoping review to investigate what and how residents learn from workplace-related intraprofessional activities, and what factors influence learning.

METHODS

The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct a scoping review of empirical studies on intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education published between 1 January 2000 to 16 April 2020 in Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science. This study applied 'best fit' framework-based synthesis to map the existing evidence, using the presage-process-product (3P) model developed by Tynjälä (2013).

RESULTS

Four thousand three hundred thirty records were screened, and 37 articles were included. This review identified influencing (presage) factors that derived from the sociocultural environment, learner and learning context. Studies described that complexity of care can both facilitate and hinder learning. Furthermore, intraprofessional learning is threatened by professional stereotyping and negative perceptions, and awareness of learning opportunities and explicit reflection are critical in intraprofessional workplace learning. Studies described a range of informal and formal intraprofessional activities (process) under the headings of collaboration in clinical practice, rotations or placements, formal educational sessions and simulated workplace training. In general, learners responded well and their attitudes and perceptions improved, learners reported increased knowledge and skills and positive behavioural changes (product). Learning outcomes were reported in the domains of patient-centred care, collaborative attitudes and respect, mutual knowledge and understanding, collaborative decision making, communication, leadership, teamwork and reflexivity.

CONCLUSIONS

This review gives insight into the high learning potential of intraprofessional activities. Many of the included studies relied on self-reported perceptions of change, therefore, future research should focus on generating more robust evidence including objectively examined outcome measures. This review offers a comprehensive overview of the factors that influence intraprofessional workplace learning in postgraduate medical education. Finally, we provide recommendations for enhancing intraprofessional learning in clinical practice.