Search

Introduction: Care for the frail elderly is often provided by several professionals. Collaboration between them is essential, but remains difficult to achieve. Interprofessional education (IPE) can improve this collaboration. We developed a 9-hour IPE program for primary care professionals from 7 disciplines caring for the frail elderly, and aimed to establish whether the program improved professionals' interprofessional attitudes and attitudes toward collaboration, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. We also evaluated learners' reactions to the program. Methods: Before-after study, using the Interprofessional Attitudes Questionnaire (IAQ, score:1 to 7); Attitudes Toward Health Care Teams Scale (ATHCTS, score: 0 to 105); and Team Skills Scale (TSS, score:17 to 85). Additionally, semistructured interviews were conducted with 10 selected participants. Results: Participants' ( N = 80) overall interprofessional attitudes improved (IAQ baseline: 5.49; follow-up: 5.67, p = 0.001); attitudes toward geriatric teams did not change (ATHCTS baseline: 69.9; follow-up: 69.1, p = 0.32). Participants' self-reported team skills improved (TSS baseline: 45.7; follow-up: 48.1, p = 0.001). In the interviews, many interviewees reported increased collaboration with professionals of other disciplines due to the program. Interviewees considered the program's interprofessional nature and attending the program with local professionals important contributing factors to the experienced improvements in collaboration. However, they also noted that not all parts of the program had met the needs of all participating disciplines, due to differences in professional background and knowledge. Discussion: A brief IPE program can improve interprofessional attitudes, collaboration skills, and collaborative behavior. That such a program allows professionals to get acquainted with each other and each other's viewpoints appears to be as important as the educational content. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Care integration in primary elderly care is suboptimal. Validated instruments are needed to enable the implementation of integrated primary care. We aimed to assess construct validity of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care measurement tool (RMIC-MT) for healthcare professionals working in an integrated primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the RMIC-MT, a 36-item questionnaire covering all domains of the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC), was sent out to local networks of primary elderly care professionals. Confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was used for the validation of the factor structure the RMIC-MT. Model fit was assessed by the chi-square test and fit indices. Results: The RMIC-MT was completed by 323 professionals, primarily general practitioners, community nurses, practice nurses, and case managers. Confirmatory factor analysis and corresponding fit indices showed moderate to good fit, thereby confirming a nine factor model with a total of 36 items. Conclusions: The RMIC-MT is promising for the primary elderly care setting in the Netherlands. It can be used for evaluating integrated care initiatives in a primary care setting, thereby contributing to implementation of integrated primary elderly care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although frail older people can be more reluctant to become involved in clinical decision making, they do want professionals to take their concerns and wishes into account. Discussing goals can help professionals to achieve this. Objective: To describe the development of a two‐step method for discussing goals with frail older people in primary care and professionals' first experiences with it. Methods: The method consisted of (i) an open‐ended question: If there is one thing we can do for you to improve your situation, what would you like? if necessary, followed by (ii) a bubble diagram with goal subject categories. We reviewed the goals elaborated with the method and surveyed professionals' (primary care nurses and social workers) experiences, using questions concerning time investment, reasons for not formulating goals, and perceived value of the method. Results: One hundred and thirty‐seven community‐dwelling frail older people described 173 goals. These most frequently concerned mobility (n = 43; 24.9%), well‐being (n = 52; 30.1%) and social context (n = 57; 32.9%). Professionals (n = 18) were generally positive about the method, as it improved their knowledge about what the frail older person valued. Not all frail older people formulated goals; reasons for this included being perfectly comfortable, not being used to discussing goals or cognitive problems limiting their ability to formulate goals. Conclusions: This two‐step method for discussing goals can assist professionals in gaining insight into what a frail older person values. This can guide professionals and frail older people in choosing the most appropriate treatment option, thus increasing frail older people's involvement in decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]