Feasibility testing of an interprofessional education intervention to support collaborative practice in home care for older stroke survivors with multiple chronic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This mixed-methods study examined the feasibility of implementing a new six-month, theory-based, interprofessional education intervention, and explored its effects and impact on collaborative practice among home care providers caring for older adult stroke survivors (≥65) with multiple chronic conditions. The evaluation utilized a qualitative descriptive and one group repeated measures design which included participant questionnaires, focus groups and field notes. Participants included 37 home care providers (registered nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, personal support workers, care coordinators, and their supervisors) in Ontario, Canada. The intervention was feasible and acceptable to home care providers. Perceived benefits included improved communication and collaboration within teams, enhanced role understanding, increased learning with and from each other, and increased appreciation of all team members' expertise. From 3 to 6 months post initial IPE training, there was a statistically significant improvement in three domains of collaborative practice as measured by the Collaborative Practice Assessment Tool (communication/information exchange; community linkage and coordination of care; decision-making and conflict management) and one domain of collaborative practice, as measured by the 19-item Team Climate Inventory (task orientation). Implications for implementing interprofessional education in home care practice settings are described. Further testing in other populations and settings is warranted.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".