Characteristics, barriers and facilitators of initiatives to develop interprofessional collaboration in rural and remote primary healthcare facilities: a scoping review.

Rural Remote Health

Centre de recherche du CISSS Chaudière-Appalaches, 143 rue Wolfe, Lévis, Québec G6V 3Z1, Canada; Collectif de recherche sur la santé en région (CoRSeR), Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec G5L 3A1, Canada; Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, 150 place Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, Québec J4K 0A8, Canada; and Department of Health Sciences, Université du Québec à Rimouski, 300 Allée des Ursulines, Rimouski, Québec G5L 3A1, Canada

Published: November 2022

AI Article Synopsis

  • The article explores the importance of interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in primary health care (PHC), especially in rural and remote areas, highlighting a lack of research on effective initiatives.
  • A scoping review of 94 articles resulted in 23 relevant studies, finding that while ten focused on implementing IPC initiatives, most discussed the barriers and facilitators to these efforts.
  • Key barriers included limited human resources and unclear roles, while facilitators like team size and community connections showed promise for enhancing IPC in these challenging clinical environments.

Article Abstract

Introduction: Despite strong evidence supporting interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and the documented need for collaborative practice in primary health care (PHC), initiatives to promote IPC in rural and remote PHC facilities have not been extensively studied. The purpose of this article is to map interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional practice (IPP) initiatives implemented to promote IPC in rural and remote PHC facilities, and identify barriers and facilitators to their implementation.

Methods: A scoping review was conducted. After two reviewers filtered titles and abstracts, 94 retained articles were subsequently screened. Finally, 23 articles were selected and analyzed using a directed content analysis approach in NVivo v12.

Results: Only 10 articles focused on the implementation of initiatives to improve IPC, while the majority reported barriers and facilitators. The most common IPE initiatives were workshops, courses, discussion groups and simulations, while IPP initiatives fell into two main categories: clinical or technological tools. Limited human resources, understanding of roles, and knowledge of context as well as traditional roles, were identified as barriers. Team size, past experience and relationships, connection to community, flexibility and openness, and financial support were facilitators to developing IPC.

Conclusion: Deployment of IPC in rural and remote PHC facilities is critical given the various challenges faced in these clinical settings. The facilitators identified in this literature review are specific to rural and remote clinical settings and provide hope that new initiatives more tailored to rural and remote settings will be implemented and evaluated in the future to improve IPC and care delivery.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.22605/RRH7566DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

rural remote
24
barriers facilitators
12
ipc rural
12
remote phc
12
phc facilities
12
interprofessional collaboration
8
scoping review
8
promote ipc
8
ipp initiatives
8
improve ipc
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!