MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413847364 · doi:10.1016/j.xjep.2025.100763

Perceived use, effectiveness and barriers of interprofessional interventions in an integrated Canadian trauma system: A practice survey

2025· article· en· W4413847364 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandra Lapierre, Mélanie Berube, Valérie Turcotte, Marianne Giroux, Fabian Severino, Liane Boisvert, David Williamson, Éric Mercier, Andréane Richard‐Denis, Lynne Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interprofessional Education & Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNursing Roles and Practices
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyMedicineMedical educationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Effective interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is crucial for trauma care, but professionals often work in silos, leading to fragmented care. Interprofessional interventions can enhance IPC and trauma care quality, but their implementation and stakeholders' preferences are not well understood. We aimed to assess the perceived use, effectiveness, and barriers of interprofessional interventions in an integrated trauma system. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey across level I to III trauma centers within a Canadian trauma system (n=33). The survey was emailed to trauma program managers or medical directors, who forwarded it to their trauma committee members. The survey included 17 interprofessional interventions categorized into practice, education, and organization. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results 79% of trauma centers responded (n=26/33), including 10 level I-II and 16 level III centers, with 1 to 9 participants per center (n=76). The most commonly used interventions were practice-based, including patient-centered care (72%), interprofessional protocols (70%), and trauma team activation protocols (61%). Educational interventions (13-28%, e.g., simulation) and organizational interventions (4-58%, e.g., specialized teams, clinical pathways) were less common. Highly effective interventions were primarily organizational (93-98%, e.g., specialized teams), with some practice-based (92-95%, e.g., debriefing) and one educational (91%, simulation) intervention. Barriers included limited resources, time constraints, and team instability. Conclusion Our survey revealed variability in interprofessional interventions within a Canadian trauma system, with some perceived as highly effective but underutilized. We also identified barriers to implementation, guiding future efforts to improve trauma care through interprofessional strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.437 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interprofessional Education & PracticeSame topicNursing Roles and PracticesFrench-language works237,207