Interprofessional misperceptions among physicians and nurses in long-term care facilities
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Today's comprehensive system of health care delivery requires knowledge and skills of physicians and nurses that neither profession can provide without collaboration from the other. Without this interprofessional collaboration, patient care will suffer from fragmentation, resulting in confusion and apprehension on the part of the patient. It appears that many benefits can be gained from appropriate collaborative team work between physicians and nurses. A systematic review of the literature shows that collaboration has led to improved patient outcomes such as decreased morbidity and mortality, and increased patient satisfaction. An increase in job satisfaction, as well as a decrease in health care costs are indicated in the literature as additional benefits. Unfortunately, many barriers can stand in the way of the development of the realization of the collaborative team concept and its many potential benefits. Interprofessional misperceptions has been indicated in the literature as a barrier. It has been suggested that misperceptions can seriously interfere with any collaborative effort between health professionals. Currently there is no research available on the levels of interprofessional misperceptions among the physicians and the nurses in long-term care facilities. To partially fill this void, this exploratory study has examined the interprofessional misperceptions among physicians and nurses in 13 long-term care facilities in Vancouver, British Columbia. For the purpose of this study interprofessional misperception has been defined as the difference between one professional's perception on how the other professional would view an issue, and the viewpoint actually expressed by the other professional on the same issue. The interpersonal perception method has been used as the conceptual framework for the study. A survey has been conducted among 28 physicians and 66 nurses. They volunteered to fill out a questionnaire called the Interprofessional Perception Scale, which has provided some insight into the subjects' misperceptions. Only small degrees of misperceptions were found among the two professions. In fact, the highest degree of misperception among 15 issues was still only 36%, and was found among the nurses regarding physicians' views on whether nurses expect too much of the physicians. It was also found that significant numbers of physicians and nurses perceived that they have difficulties with the issues of professional territoriality, the under-utilization of their professional capabilities, and their lack of professional autonomy. Thus, despite the failure to find substantial interprofessional misperception, the findings of the study suggest that there are issues between the physicians and the nurses in long-term care facilities that could be barriers to collaboration. There is a need for both professions to work toward an improved form of collaborative team work. To this end, several strategies for change are suggested as part of this study.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».