Julia Arndt

Bio: Julia Arndt is an academic researcher from Alberta Health Services. The author has contributed to research in topics: Health education & Health care. The author has an hindex of 3, co-authored 3 publications receiving 607 citations.

Role understanding and effective communication as core competencies for collaborative practice

Abstract: The ability to work with professionals from other disciplines to deliver collaborative, patient-centred care is considered a critical element of professional practice requiring a specific set of co...

Socialization in health education: encouraging an integrated interprofessional socialization process.

Abstract: There is limited research on how health professionals are currently socialized to work interprofessionally. As part of a large-scale initiative funded by Health Canada, this report adds to our understanding of socialization and how it can prepare the health care student for an interprofessional health care environment. Data were collected through semistructured individual and group interviews with 83 respondents (i.e., faculty, students, health care and academic administrators, and health care providers) at seven clinical sites and five academic institutions throughout Alberta. Respondents indicated that socialization prepares health care students for interprofessional environments by "building a professional identity" and through what we are labeling "interprofessional familiarization" (i.e., where the goal is to introduce students to the roles and function of other professionals outside their own discipline). While there is interprofessional familiarization, it is neither consistently espoused as important nor systematically embedded in curriculum and clinical placements. Interprofessional competency building is lacking during this preparatory phase, leaving students ill prepared to work in interprofessional health care environments. We argue there is a need for greater interprofessional socialization in education. By creating a deliberate, planned, and integrated interprofessional socialization process that is consistent across the health professions, barriers to interprofessional practice could be mitigated.

Interprofessional collaboration: effects of practice-based interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Poor interprofessional collaboration (IPC) can negatively affect the delivery of health services and patient care. Interventions that address IPC problems have the potential to improve professional practice and healthcare outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of practice-based interventions designed to change IPC, compared to no intervention or to an alternate intervention, on one or more of the following primary outcomes: patient satisfaction and/or the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care provided. Secondary outcomes include the degree of IPC achieved. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (2000-2007), MEDLINE (1950-2007) and CINAHL (1982-2007). We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1999 to 2007) and reference lists of the five included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of practice-based IPC interventions that reported changes in objectively-measured or self-reported (by use of a validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and/or health status outcomes and/or healthcare process outcomes and/or measures of IPC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two of the three reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of each potentially relevant study. One author extracted data from and assessed risk of bias of included studies, consulting with the other authors when necessary. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible given the small number of included studies and their heterogeneity in relation to clinical settings, interventions and outcome measures. Consequently, we summarised the study data and presented the results in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: Five studies met the inclusion criteria; two studies examined interprofessional rounds, two studies examined interprofessional meetings, and one study examined externally facilitated interprofessional audit. One study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in inpatient medical wards at an acute care hospital showed a positive impact on length of stay and total charges, but another study on daily interdisciplinary rounds in a community hospital telemetry ward found no impact on length of stay. Monthly multidisciplinary team meetings improved prescribing of psychotropic drugs in nursing homes. Videoconferencing compared to audioconferencing multidisciplinary case conferences showed mixed results; there was a decreased number of case conferences per patient and shorter length of treatment, but no differences in occasions of service or the length of the conference. There was also no difference between the groups in the number of communications between health professionals recorded in the notes. Multidisciplinary meetings with an external facilitator, who used strategies to encourage collaborative working, was associated with increased audit activity and reported improvements to care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In this updated review, we found five studies (four new studies) that met the inclusion criteria. The review suggests that practice-based IPC interventions can improve healthcare processes and outcomes, but due to the limitations in terms of the small number of studies, sample sizes, problems with conceptualising and measuring collaboration, and heterogeneity of interventions and settings, it is difficult to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPC and its effectiveness. More rigorous, cluster randomised studies with an explicit focus on IPC and its measurement, are needed to provide better evidence of the impact of practice-based IPC interventions on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These studies should include qualitative methods to provide insight into how the interventions affect collaboration and how improved collaboration contributes to changes in outcomes.

A National Interprofessional Competency Framework

Abstract: The overall goal of interprofessional education and collaborative practice is to provide health system users with improved health outcomes. Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) occurs when learners/practitioners, patients/clients/families and communities develop and maintain interprofessional working relationships that enable optimal health outcomes. Interprofessional education (IPE), which is the process of preparing people for collaborative practice, and IPC itself, are more and more frequently incorporated into health professional education and models of practice. For this reason, a clear understanding of the characteristics of the ideal collaborative practitioner is required to inform curriculum and professional development for interprofessional education, and enlighten professional practice for interprofessional collaboration.

Interprofessional education in allied health: a systematic review.

Abstract: Objectives During the past decade, several studies have systematically reviewed interprofessional education (IPE), but few have inclusively reviewed this literature. None has focused primarily on IPE in allied health, despite differences in recruitment and socialisation across the health professions. This systematic review seeks to uncover the best approach to pre-licensure, university-based allied health IPE to determine which aspects require modification in which contexts to provide optimal learning experiences. Methods A systematic search of 10 databases was conducted for articles published in English, between January 1998 and January 2013. Studies were included if they used quantitative or qualitative methodologies to report on the outcomes associated with IPE in allied health. Two independent reviewers identified studies that met the inclusion criteria, critically appraised the included studies and extracted data relating to the effectiveness of IPE in allied health. Data were synthesised narratively to address the study aims. Results Large gaps – relating to methods, theory and context – remain within this body of literature. Studies measured students' attitudes and understanding of other health professional roles, teamwork and knowledge in response to IPE interventions using patient scenarios, lectures and small-group work. Differences in power and curriculum placement were described as factors affecting IPE effectiveness. Conclusions Evaluation remains the primary aim within this literature. Few studies use theory, take an inductive approach to understanding the processes behind IPE or include detailed participant descriptions. Therefore, we suggest that IPE research is currently caught in an epistemological struggle, between assumptions underpinning biomedical and health science research, and those underpinning education studies. As part of a systems approach to understanding interprofessional socialisation, we call for researchers to take a realistic approach to evaluation that is inclusive of, and responsive to, contextual factors to explore how IPE leads to improved long-term outcomes in differing circumstances.