Factors Enabling Communication-Based Collaboration in Interprofessional Healthcare Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The healthcare system has moved from autonomous practice to a cross-disciplinary interprofessional team-based approach in which communication for collaborative care is vital. Ineffective communication contributes to the team's inability to work collaboratively and significantly increases the possibilities of mistakes occurring in the delivery of patient care. So, effective communication for collaborative care becomes necessary for ensuring patient safety. This paper aims to advance our understandings of current communication-based collaborative healthcare practices. Specifically, it explores the factors enabling communication-based inter-professional practice. A qualitative study was selected for obtaining real life experiences of healthcare professionals. Twenty-five participants participated in the study, and the descriptive interview method was used to obtain qualitative data. The enabling factors were grouped into five main themes: communication, coordination, cooperation, trust, and collaboration. Quotes from the participants are presented to augment the interpretation and enhanced description of the enabling factors. Managerial implications, areas for future research, and limitations are given besides the conclusions of the study.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it