Community‐based program promotes interprofessional collaboration among home healthcare professionals: A non‐randomized controlled study

• DOI: 10.1111/ggi.13681
• Publication Date: 2019-05-13T23:04:28Z
• Authors: Maiko Noguchi‐Wat...; Keiko Maruyama‐Sa...; Noriko Yamamoto‐M...; Yoshiko Matsumoto; Satoru Yoshie; Katsuya Iijima; Takashi Yamanaka; Masahiro Akishita
• Keywords: Adult; Male; Patient Care Team; Community-Based Participatory Research; Interprofessional Relations; 4. Education; Transitional Care; Middle Aged; 16. Peace & justice; Home Care Services; Quality Improvement; Education; 3. Good health; 03 medical and health sciences; Japan; Humans; Female; Interdisciplinary Communication; 0305 other medical science; Intersectoral Collaboration; Program Evaluation

AimTo evaluate the effect of an interprofessional collaboration (IPC) promotion program among community healthcare professionals.MethodsA non‐randomized controlled study was carried out. Study participants were home healthcare‐related professionals in a suburban city near Tokyo; program participants were compared with non‐participants. The program consisted of two workshops each 2 h long and 4 months apart. The first workshop focused on developing a community resource map, and discussing community strengths and features. The second focused on examining a case of transitional care from hospital to home. Mail surveys were carried out before the first workshop and 6 months after. The IPC level was examined using an established seven‐domain scale. Analysis of covariance was used to examine the program effect by comparing baseline and 6‐month data in the two groups.ResultsAltogether, 213 professionals participated (intervention: n = 141 vs control: n = 72); approximately 60% were women, with a mean age of 45.9 ± 10.2 years. There were significant between‐group differences in baseline IPC score, age, type of profession and number of other educational opportunities. After adjusting for these variables, the IPC domains of “familiarity” and “meeting and talking” improved significantly in the intervention group as compared with the control group (P = 0.011 and 0.036, respectively). When the intervention group was split in two (two‐time vs one‐time participants), the improvement at 6 months was not significantly different between two‐ and one‐time participants.ConclusionsIt is suggested that our program is effective to improve the IPC level; one‐time participation might be enough to have expected improvement. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2019; 19: 660–666.