Perspectives about Interprofessional Collaboration and Patient-Centred Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interprofessional collaboration is understood to improve efficiencies and quality of care but is associated with challenges such as professionals' differing routines, knowledge, and identities, as well as professional hierarchies and time constraints. Given these challenges, there is limited understanding of how professionals collaborate effectively in providing patient-centred care. This study, with a convergence triangulation mixed-methods study design, explored interprofessional staffs' perceptions of interprofessional collaboration and patient-centred care when working with hospitalized older adults. Thirty-six staff responded to a survey which included the Patient-Centred Care measure and the Modified Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration; we also interviewed 14 nursing staff. Although all scores suggested a high value was placed on interprofessional collaboration, scores were low related to activities that facilitated team processes. We identified three themes from the data: knowing the patient/family, functional needs, and communication processes. Staff identified daily rounds with interprofessional teams as supportive of interprofessional collaboration and patient-centred-care.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.033 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".