Identifying Current Practices and Areas for Improvement in Medication Management During Care Transition Through an Interprofessional Collaboration Framework
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Poor coordination and communication during care transitions can lead to medical errors, patient dissatisfaction, and hospital readmissions. The transition period from hospital to the first medical appointment is a high-risk and vulnerable time for patients, and a complex one for healthcare professionals. While interprofessional collaboration can improve the quality and safety of care, its implementation remains underexplored. This study examines the current state and areas for improvement in interprofessional medication management during the hospital discharge transition (from hospital discharge to first medical appointment) for patients self-managing their medications. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using a serial focus group methodology with patients and healthcare professionals from hospital and community settings. Participants were sampled purposively. Discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Thematic findings were categorised using the 2010 Canadian National Interprofessional Competency (CIHC) Framework, distinguishing between current practices and areas for improvement. Additionally, a classification questionnaire, adapted from the nominal group technique, was used to rank proposed improvement strategies based on their perceived impact and feasibility. Results: Twelve participants (10 healthcare professionals and two patients) contributed to four focus groups. The study identified strengths and areas for improvement in five of the six CIHC 2010 competency domains: 1. Interprofessional communication: present but needing better structure and proactivity; 2. Patient partnership: recognised but requiring more consistency; 3. Role clarification: unclearly defined, causing inefficiencies; 4. Team functioning: common in hospital settings, but inconsistent during transition; 5. Collaborative leadership: present but lacking clear coordination at handover. An overarching category, "Macro-level improvements" was introduced to highlight system-wide changes and the need for policy support to implement and sustain interprofessional collaboration. Conclusion: While existing practices emphasise interprofessional communication and patient involvement, role clarity and collaborative leadership remain significant challenges. Healthcare professionals are motivated and ready to collaborate, but policy and coordinated efforts among healthcare meso- and macro-entities are needed to implement sustainable interprofessional practice models, to increase quality of pharmaceutical care, and improve patient outcomes during care transition from hospital to home.
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 | 0,001 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».