MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406725028 · doi:10.1097/ncm.0000000000000793

Interprofessional Collaboration as a Best Practice Across the Care Continuum

2025· article· en· W4406725028 on OpenAlexaff
Vivian Campagna, Lorna Lee-Riley

Bibliographic record

VenueProfessional Case Management · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollaborative CareMultidisciplinary approachCertificationHealth careInterprofessional educationSocial workNursingVariety (cybernetics)CommissionBest practiceCase managementProfessional boundariesPsychologyMedical educationMedicineMental healthSociologyBusinessPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Interprofessional teams are increasingly being recognized as a best practice for enhancing cooperation among multiple disciplines in delivering person-centered care and improving outcomes. Unlike previous models, such as the multidisciplinary team in which each profession or discipline remained largely siloed, with interprofessional teams collaboration occurs across disciplines. For case managers, the interprofessional team concept aligns with the collaborative, professionally diverse nature of the field of practice. As the Commission for Case Manager Certification (CCMC) states: "The practice of case management is professional and collaborative, occurring in a variety of settings where medical care, mental health care, and social supports are delivered. Services are facilitated by diverse disciplines in conjunction with the care recipient and their support system" (2024b, CCMC Definition and Philosophy, p.1). Although interprofessional teams may be more familiar in settings such as acute care, this dynamic can be found, formally and informally, across health and human services. Professional case managers who actively participate in interprofessional teams will likely find more opportunities to optimize collaboration and collective decision-making that bring out the best of every profession and discipline. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: Interprofessional teams can be found in multiple care settings including acute care, subacute care, community-based care, palliative/end-of-life and other settings that benefit from a person-centered approach that supports successful transitions of care and improved outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: Professional case managers are valued members of interprofessional teams, in that they are typically collaborative, promote open communication, and encourage cooperation among various disciplines. Interprofessional teams, however, may require a shift in thinking away from the former multidisciplinary model, in which case managers often acted as the hub connecting the spokes of each discipline. Within interprofessional teams, the individual is at the center, and every discipline will share leadership based on the individual's needs or the treatment protocol or other intervention needed in the moment. In this way, interprofessional teams become a model for empowering and allowing each discipline to step up and address specific aspects of treatment or other interventions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.480 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProfessional Case ManagementSame topicInterprofessional Education and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207