South Eastern Interprofessional Collaborative Learning Environment (SEIPCLE): Nurturing Collaborative Practice

Abstract

Abstract

Background: There has been tremendous pressure on Canada’s healthcare system to respond to the increasingly complex health needs of the population despite worsening constraints in financial and human resources. Interprofessional collaborative practice has been seen as an enabler for improving patient care and meeting the current demands on the healthcare system.

Methods: The South Eastern Interprofessional Collaborative Learning Environment (SEIPCLE) project, funded by HealthForceOntario, focused on the development and evaluation of the collaborative practice care model in three clinical settings in Southeastern Ontario, Canada. The project was exploratory in nature and used a quasi-experimental design with pre- and post-tests matched with non-equivalent control groups. Several different measures were used, including the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (CPAT), an Interprofessional Clinical Education Survey, and a Patient Participation Survey. Quantitative outcome measures were derived from these instruments using factor analysis, and analyzed using regression modelling with co-variates. Focus groups, interviews, and questionnaires provided qualitative data that was coded conceptually and used to complement the results of analyses using quantitative measures. Intervention teams participated in educational components that addressed identified weaknesses in their collaborative practice. Educational components included online modules, workshops, and real-time activities.

Findings: Implementation of educational components in the clinical setting posed a number of challenges to reducing the exposure time for some of the intervention teams. Barriers to and enablers of the development of collaborative practice in the healthcare system were identified.

Conclusion: Overall, all three intervention teams demonstrated an increase in perceived levels of collaborative practice. Although the results were not statistically significant, the effect, size, and magnitude of change were considered substantial.