4.1 Article

Developing interprofessional communication skills for pharmacists to improve their ability to collaborate with other professions

期刊

JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 458-465

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.3109/13561820.2016.1154021

关键词

Clinical pharmacy; interprofessional communication; interprofessional education; qualitative research; reflective practice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Successful communication between health professionals is a prerequisite for collaborative practice. Clinical pharmacists completed a learning and practice module introducing them to a framework for successful interprofessional communication (IPC) in the course of their postgraduate studies. A face-to-face discussion of a contemporary clinical topic with a health professional was then scheduled, mainly with junior doctors, in their practice setting. An exploratory case study methodology was employed to investigate pharmacists' written reflections on their experience applying their newly acquired IPC skills. Thematic analysis of reflections developed five categories relating to interprofessional collaboration, learning, and education. Themes describing pharmacists' preconceptions about the health professional and scheduled interprofessional encounter, how it allowed them to learn about doctors' and other health professionals' practice and build collaborative relationships were identified. Reflections also elaborated that applying the communication framework and strengthening of collaboration created opportunities for IPE, with added observations about these increasing potential impact on patient care and change of practice. Analysis of anonymous feedback provided by the health professionals yielded similar themes and was integrated for triangulation. Applying successful IPC skills in healthcare settings may increase interprofessional collaboration and create practice models which facilitate interprofessional learning in health profession programmes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据