Alexandra Lapierre , Mélanie Bérubé , Valérie Turcotte , Marianne Giroux , Fabian Severino , Liane Boisvert , David Williamson , Éric Mercier , Andréane Richard-Denis , Lynne Moore
{"title":"Perceived use, effectiveness and barriers of interprofessional interventions in an integrated Canadian trauma system: A practice survey","authors":"Alexandra Lapierre , Mélanie Bérubé , Valérie Turcotte , Marianne Giroux , Fabian Severino , Liane Boisvert , David Williamson , Éric Mercier , Andréane Richard-Denis , Lynne Moore","doi":"10.1016/j.xjep.2025.100763","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>79 % of trauma centers responded (n = 26/33), including 10 level I-II and 16 level III centers, with 1–9 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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37998,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice","volume":"41 ","pages":"Article 100763"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interprofessional Education and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405452625000266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
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 1–9 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.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, a quarterly online-only journal, provides innovative ideas for interprofessional educators and practitioners through peer-reviewed articles and reports. Each issue examines current issues and trends in interprofessional healthcare topics, offering progressive solutions to the challenges facing the profession. The Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice (JIEP) is affiliated with University of Nebraska Medical Center and the official journal of National Academies of Practice (NAP) and supports its mission to serve the public and the health profession by advancing education, policy, practice & research.