' … breaks down silos': allied health clinicians' perceptions of informal interprofessional interactions in the healthcare workplace.

IF 2.5 2区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Health Sociology Review Pub Date : 2022-03-01 Epub Date: 2021-03-04 DOI:10.1080/14461242.2021.1886865
Olivia King, Nicole Shaw
{"title":"' … breaks down silos': allied health clinicians' perceptions of informal interprofessional interactions in the healthcare workplace.","authors":"Olivia King,&nbsp;Nicole Shaw","doi":"10.1080/14461242.2021.1886865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Informal interprofessional interactions have gained interest in recent interprofessional care, education, health services and social sciences research literature. Some of the established benefits associated with these interactions include enhanced communication, teamwork, research translation and the provision of safer care. Limited evidence about how informal interprofessional interactions are perceived by the allied health workforce, exists. The survey conducted at a large Australian health service explored allied health clinicians' perceptions of the benefits, challenges and enablers of informal interprofessional interactions and their recommendations to improve opportunities for these workplace interactions. Sixty-four responses were analysed descriptively (for close-ended questions) and using a framework analysis approach, informed by Bourdieu's <i>social space</i> theory (for open-ended questions). Perceived benefits were aligned with three themes: teams and organisations, individual clinicians and service-users. Challenges to, and enablers of, informal interprofessional interactions were identified according to five themes: socio-cultural practices, physical environment, timing-related factors, individual and organisational factors. Participant recommendations to increase opportunities for informal interprofessional workplace interactions for allied health reflected three of the aforementioned themes: socio-cultural practices, physical environment and organisational factors. This theoretically-informed analysis may aid in the development of strategies to support these types of workplace interactions and realise the benefits identified.</p>","PeriodicalId":46833,"journal":{"name":"Health Sociology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/14461242.2021.1886865","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Sociology Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14461242.2021.1886865","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Informal interprofessional interactions have gained interest in recent interprofessional care, education, health services and social sciences research literature. Some of the established benefits associated with these interactions include enhanced communication, teamwork, research translation and the provision of safer care. Limited evidence about how informal interprofessional interactions are perceived by the allied health workforce, exists. The survey conducted at a large Australian health service explored allied health clinicians' perceptions of the benefits, challenges and enablers of informal interprofessional interactions and their recommendations to improve opportunities for these workplace interactions. Sixty-four responses were analysed descriptively (for close-ended questions) and using a framework analysis approach, informed by Bourdieu's social space theory (for open-ended questions). Perceived benefits were aligned with three themes: teams and organisations, individual clinicians and service-users. Challenges to, and enablers of, informal interprofessional interactions were identified according to five themes: socio-cultural practices, physical environment, timing-related factors, individual and organisational factors. Participant recommendations to increase opportunities for informal interprofessional workplace interactions for allied health reflected three of the aforementioned themes: socio-cultural practices, physical environment and organisational factors. This theoretically-informed analysis may aid in the development of strategies to support these types of workplace interactions and realise the benefits identified.

“……打破孤岛”:专职健康临床医生对医疗保健工作场所非正式跨专业互动的看法。
非正式的专业间互动在最近的专业间护理、教育、保健服务和社会科学研究文献中引起了人们的兴趣。与这些互动相关的一些已确定的益处包括加强沟通、团队合作、研究翻译和提供更安全的护理。关于联合卫生工作人员如何感知非正式的专业间互动的证据有限。这项在澳大利亚一家大型卫生服务机构进行的调查探讨了专职卫生临床医生对非正式专业间互动的好处、挑战和促成因素的看法,以及他们对改善这些工作场所互动机会的建议。在布迪厄的社会空间理论(开放式问题)的指导下,对64个回答进行了描述性分析(封闭式问题),并使用了框架分析方法。感知到的利益与三个主题一致:团队和组织,个人临床医生和服务用户。根据五个主题确定了非正式专业间互动的挑战和推动因素:社会文化实践、物理环境、时间相关因素、个人和组织因素。与会者提出的关于增加专职保健工作场所非正式跨专业互动机会的建议反映了上述三个主题:社会文化习俗、自然环境和组织因素。这种理论上的分析可能有助于制定策略,以支持这些类型的工作场所互动,并实现所确定的好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: An international, scholarly peer-reviewed journal, Health Sociology Review explores the contribution of sociology and sociological research methods to understanding health and illness; to health policy, promotion and practice; and to equity, social justice, social policy and social work. Health Sociology Review is published in association with The Australian Sociological Association (TASA) under the editorship of Eileen Willis. Health Sociology Review publishes original theoretical and research articles, literature reviews, special issues, symposia, commentaries and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信