Interprofessional education in primary care for the elderly: a pilot study

BMC Medical Education

Petrie F Roodbol¹  Joris PJ Slaets³  Antoinette VM van Etten²  Truus A Luten⁴  Rudi Hilberts¹  Barth Oeseburg⁵ 

[1] Wenckebach Institute Postgraduate School of Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands;University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands;Geriatric Medicine, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands;Primary Care Practice Stationsstraat Hoogeveen, Stationsstraat 6a, 7901 AB Hoogeveen, The Netherlands;Wenckebach Institute, School of Nursing and Health, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands

关键词: Nursing;    Physician;    Primary care;    Learning;    Interprofessional;   

Others  :  1135759
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6920-13-161

 received in 2013-03-17, accepted in 2013-11-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Dutch health care system faces huge challenges with regard to the demand on elderly care and the competencies of nurses and physicians required to meet this demand.

At present, the main focus of health care in the Netherlands lies on illness and treatment. However, (frail) elderly need care and support that takes their daily functioning and well-being into consideration as well. Therefore, health care professionals, especially those professionals working in primary care such as GPs and practice nurses, will be challenged to a paradigm shift in emphasis from treating illness to promoting health (healthy ageing). Interprofessional education is necessary to realise this shift in professional behaviour. Evidence indicates that interprofessional education (IPE) can play a pivotal role in enhancing the competencies of professionals in order to provide elderly care that is both effectively, integrated and well-coordinated. At present, however, IPE in primary care is rarely utilised in the Netherlands. Therefore, the aim of this pilot study was to develop an IPE program for GPs and practice nurses and to evaluate the feasibility of an IPE program for professionals with different educational backgrounds and its effect on the division of professionals’ tasks and responsibilities.

Methods

Ten GPs and 10 practice nurses from eight primary care practices in two provinces in the north of the Netherlands, Groningen and Drenthe (total population about 1.1 million people), participated in the pilot IPE program. A mixed methods design including quantitative and qualitative methods was used to evaluate the IPE program.

Results

During the program, tasks and responsibilities, in particular those related to the care plan, shifted from GP to practice nurse. The participants’ attitude toward elderly (care) changed and the triage instrument, the practical tool for prioritising preferences of the elderly and discussing their medication use, was considered to have an added value to the development of the care plan.

Conclusions

The results of this pilot study show that an interprofessional education program for professionals with different educational backgrounds (GPs and practice nurses) is feasible and has an added value to the redefining of tasks and responsibilities among GPs and practice nurses.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Oeseburg et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]The National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM): Towards Better health: The Dutch 2010 Public Health Status and Forecasts Report. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2010.
• [2]The Netherlands Institute for Social Research (SCP): Frail Older Persons in the Netherlands. Den Haag: SCP; 2011.
• [3]van Oostrom SH, et al.: Multimorbiditeit en comorbiditeit in de Nederlandse bevolking: gegevens van huisartsenpraktijken (in Dutch). NTvG 2011, 155:A3193.
• [4]The Council for Public Health and Health Care (RVZ): Perspective of Health 20/20. Den Haag: RVZ; 2010.
• [5]CSO, NFU en ZonMw: Visiedocument toekomstige ouderenzorg kernwaarden, opbrengsten en perspectief (in Dutch). http://www.nationaalprogrammaouderenzorg.nl/fileadmin/www.npoz.nl/documenten/brieven/visieouderenzorg-jan2012.pdf webcite
• [6]De Graas T, et al.: Meer dan gezondheid (in Dutch). MC 2008, 554-557.
• [7]The Council for Public Health and Health Care (RVZ): Gateway Monitoring. Basic Care as the Link Between People, Care and Society. Den Haag: RVZ; 2012.
• [8]The Council for Public Health and Health Care (RVZ): Self-Sufficiency in old age: Care for Dependent Elderly People Requires Precautionary Measures by Everyone. Den Haag: RVZ; 2012.
• [9]Coleman K, Austin BT, Brach C, Wagner EH: Evidence on the chronic care model in the new millennium. Health Aff 2009, 28:75-85.
• [10]Roodbol PF: Multiprofessional education to stimulate collaboration: a circular argument and its consequences. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2010, 27:Doc 28.
• [11]Leyden academy: Inventarisatie Ouderengeneeskunde in Medische Curricula (in Dutch). Leiden: Leyden academy; 2011.
• [12]Schuurmans MJ: Gerontologische en Geriatrische Inhoud van Verpleegkunde Opleidingen in Nederland (in Dutch). Den Haag: ZonMW; 2011.
• [13]Hamers J, et al.: Ouderenzorg in het Middelbaar Beroepsonderwijs (in Dutch). Maastricht: Maastricht University; 2012.
• [14]Reeves S, et al.: A scoping review to improve conceptual clarity of interprofessional interventions. J Interprof Care 2011, 25:167-174.
• [15]Reeves S, et al.: The effectiveness of interprofessional education: key findings from a new systematic review. J Interprof Care 2010, 24:230-241.
• [16]Thistlethwaite J: Interprofessional education: a review of context, learning and the research agenda. Med Educ 2012, 46:58-70.
• [17]Santrock JW: Educational Psychology 5th edition. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2011.
• [18]Stiefel FC, et al.: Operationalizing integrated care on a clinical level: the INTERMED project. Med Clin North Am 2006, 90:713-758.
• [19]Kastermans M, Knuvers K, Slaets J, Huyse F: INTERMED Complexity Assessment Grid Self Assessment – Vragenlijst Voor Ouderen. Groningen: UMCG; 2008.
• [20]Wild B, et al.: Reliable integrative assessment of health care needs in elderly persons: the INTERMED for the Elderly (IM-E). J Psychosom Res 2011, 70:169-178.
• [21]Steverink N, Slaets J, Schuurmans H, van Lis M: Measuring frailty: developing and testing the GFI (Groningen frailty indicator). Gerontologist 2001, 41:236-237.
• [22]Peters LL, Boter H, Buskens E, Slaets JPJ: Measurement properties of the Groningen frailty indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012, 13:546-551.
• [23]Kastermans M, Knuvers K, Slaets J: Groningen Wellbeing Indicator. Groningen: UMCG; 2008.
• [24]NHG: NHG-praktijkwijzer Ouderenzorg (in Dutch). https://www.nhg.org/winkel/producten/nhg-praktijkwijzer-ouderenzorg webcite
• [25]Fried TR, Tinetti M, Agostini J, Iannone L, Towle V: Health outcome prioritization to elicit preferences of older persons with multiple health conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 3:278-282.
• [26]Van der Laan MG, van Offenbeek MAG, Broekhuis H, Slaets JPJ: A person-centred segmentation study in elderly care: towards efficient demand-driven care. Soc Sci Med 2013. submitted
• [27]Kirkpatrick DL: Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; 1994.
• [28]Denzin N, Lincoln YS: The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. 2ed. USA: Sage Publications Inc; 2003.
• [29]Rice K, et al.: An intervention to improve interprofessional collaboration and communications: a comparative qualitative study. J Interprof Care 2010, 24:350-361.
• [30]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: Free press; 2003.
• [31]Pearson D, Pandya H: Shared learning in primary care: participant’s view of the benefits of this approach. J Interprof Care 2006, 20:302-313.
• [32]Mitchell R: Effective interprofessional collaboration in rural contexts: a research protocol. J Adv Nurs 2013. doi: 10.1111/jan.12083. [Epub ahead of print]
• [33]Mann K, Sargeant J, Hill T: Knowledge translation in interprofessional education: what difference does interprofessional education make to practice? Learn Health Soc Care 2009, 8(3):154-164.
• [34]Wright IM, Wake CH, Anderson H, Graham S: Assessment of the multidisciplinary education for a major change in clinical practice; a prospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2009, 11(9):28. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-28
• [35]Contratti F, Ng G, Deeb J: Interdisciplinary team training: five lessons learned. Am J Nurs 2012, 112(6):47-52.
• [36]Drummond N, Abbott K, Williamson T, Somji B: Interprofessional primary care in academic family medicine clinics: implications for education and training. Can Fam Physician 2012, 58:e450-e458.
• [37]Soubhi H, et al.: Learning and caring in communities of practice: using relationships and collective learning to improve primary care for patients with multimorbidity. Ann Fam Med 2010, 8:170-177.
• [38]Wilcock PM, Janes G, Cambers A: Health care improvement and continuing interprofessional education: continuing interprofessional development to improve patient outcomes. J Contin Educ Health 2009, 29:84-90.
• [39]Hean S, Craddock D, Hammick M, Hammick M: Theoretical insights into interprofessional education: AMEE Guide No. 62. Med Teach 2012, 34:e78-e101.
• [40]Barr H: Toward a theoretical framework for interprofessional education. J Interprof Care 2012, 27:4-9.
• [41]Craddock D, O’Halloran C, McPherson K, Hean S, Hammick M: A top-down approach impedes the use of theory? Interprofessional educational leaders’ approaches to curriculum development and the use of learning theory. J Interprof Care 2013, 27:65-72.