BACKGROUND: Pharmacist roles in the Medication Use Process (MUP) have advanced along with new healthcare delivery models and interprofessional collaborative practice. It is unclear whether stakeholder perceptions of pharmacist roles have evolved simultaneously.
OBJECTIVE: Examine patient, pharmacist, and physician perceptions of pharmacist roles in the MUP.
METHODS: This IRB-approved study used a cross-sectional design with Qualtrics panels of patients, pharmacists, and physicians. Role Theory was used as a framework to develop 12-item surveys to study pharmacist role perceptions in the MUP: prescribing, transcribing, dispensing, administration, and monitoring. Content analysis was performed on the responses to open-ended questions.
RESULTS: From 1004 patients, a total of 7,217 comments were obtained on 9 questions (740-1004 comments), resulting in an average of 802 comments per question or 0.8 comments per question per respondent (CQR). Similarly, 1,620 comments from 205 pharmacists on 11 questions (121-205 comments) averaged 0.72 CQR; and 1,561 comments from 200 physicians on 11 questions (136-200 comments) equated to 0.74 CQR. Content analysis revealed recurring themes across the stakeholders: \'pharmacists\', \'physicians\', \'insurance\', \'technology\', \'collaboration\', \'time\', \'communication\', and \'patient\'s responsibility\'. Some role congruence was seen regarding pharmacist roles by all 3 stakeholders; noting pharmacist roles in improving all steps of the MUP, except transcribing. Pharmacists highlighted professional challenges such as staffing issues, burnout, and competing demands; which were not acknowledged by patients and physicians indicating the need to increase awareness.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed increased visibility and awareness of pharmacist roles in the MUP by all stakeholders, compared to previous research showing pharmacist roles limited to dispensing. Known barriers to pharmacy practice such as lack of provider status and reimbursement were not reported by any of the stakeholders in this study. There is a need to continuously inform stakeholders about pharmacists\' expanding roles in the MUP through advocacy and marketing.

BACKGROUND: Poor oral and dental health due to oral dysbiosis during pregnancy increases the risk for negative pregnancy outcomes. Communicating the importance of oral health is therefore essential in reducing the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Professional guidance could substantially support women\'s positive perception of their own competence. Information on oral health should be provided by healthcare professionals such as midwives, obstetricians and dentists. The aim of this study was to assess the needs, wishes and preferences of pregnant women in Germany, regarding interprofessional collaboration and guidance on oral health during pregnancy.
METHODS: Sources of information, preferences regarding information supply as well as the need for interprofessional collaboration of involved healthcare professions were investigated in six online focus groups with pregnant women. In addition, three expert interviews with a midwife, an obstetrician and a dentist were conducted. The focus groups and interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.
RESULTS: 25 pregnant women participated in focus groups. Pregnant women in all trimesters, aged 23 to 38 years, were included. Many women did not receive any or received insufficient information on oral health during pregnancy and wished for more consistent and written information from all involved healthcare providers. The extent of oral health counselling women received, heavily relied on their personal initiative and many would have appreciated learning about the scientific connection between oral health and pregnancy outcomes. An overall uncertainty about the timing and safety of a dental visit during pregnancy was identified. Interviews with experts provided additional insights into the working conditions of the involved healthcare professionals in counselling and emphasised the need for improved training on oral health during pregnancy in their respective professional education as well as thematic billing options in relation to this topic.
CONCLUSIONS: Guidance of women on oral health during pregnancy appears to be insufficient. Providing information adapted to the needs, wishes and preferences of women during pregnancy as well as the implementation of this topic in the education of involved healthcare professionals could contribute to an improved prenatal care for pregnant women and subsequently a reduced risk of negative pregnancy outcomes.

Health professionals often need to work together to provide team-based care. With increasing healthcare complexities and manpower shortages, more health professionals are working in multiple, fluid teams instead of one stable team, to provide care to patients. However, there is currently no validated instrument to measure the quality of interprofessional collaboration in fluid teams. One approach is to assess team members\' perceived level of teamness (qualities that make clinical teams effective). This study aimed to examine the validity evidence of using the Assessment for Collaborative Environment (ACE-15) in fluid teams and investigate if teamness varies among health professions and clinical settings. Content and response process validity were gathered through consulting experts and cognitive interviews, resulting in revisions to 11 of 15 items in ACE-15. Through exploratory factor analysis of 194 responses on the revised ACE-15, a 13-item instrument, ACE-13F, with strong validity evidence for use in fluid teams was developed. A two-factor fixed effect ANOVA model revealed that the clinical setting that health professionals work in has a significant impact on the level of teamness (F[3,170] = 6.15, p < .001, η2 = 0.09). ACE-13F can be used as a rapid instrument to measure interprofessional collaboration in fluid healthcare teams.

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in stroke care is accepted as best practice and necessary given the multi-system challenges and array of professionals involved. Our two-part stroke team simulations offer an intentional interprofessional educational experience (IPE) embedded in pre-licensure occupational therapy, physical therapy, pharmacy, medicine, nursing and speech-language pathology curricula. This six-year mixed method program evaluation aimed to determine if simulation delivery differences necessitated by COVID-19 impacted students\' IPC perception, ratings, and reported learning. Following both simulations, the Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Assessment Scale (ICCAS) and free-text self-reported learning was voluntarily and anonymously collected. A factorial ANOVA using the ICCAS interprofessional competency factors compared scores across delivery methods. Content and category analysis was done for free-text responses. Overall, delivery formats did not affect positive changes in pre-post ICCAS scores. However, pre and post ICCAS scores were significantly different for interprofessional competencies of roles/responsibilities and collaborative patient/family centered approach. Analysis of over 10,000 written response to four open-ended questions revealed the simulation designs evoked better understanding of others\' and own scope of practice, how roles and shared leadership change based on context and client need, and the value of each team member\'s expertise. Virtual-experience-only students noted preference for an in-person stroke clinic simulation opportunity.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) data for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) indicates a concerning increase in the proportion of children who are at risk or developmentally vulnerable in the domains of communication and general knowledge, and language and cognitive skills. This study investigated the effectiveness of speech-language pathologist and educator collaboration to build educator capacity to promote oral language and emergent literacy skills in preschool children.
UNASSIGNED: A quasi-experimental, pre-test post-test design was used to evaluate the effectiveness of interprofessional delivery of Read It Again - KindergartenQ! on (a) children\'s oral language and emergent literacy outcomes, (b) educators\' oral language and emergent literacy instructional practices, and (c) quality of the classroom environment.
UNASSIGNED: Children demonstrated improved print knowledge and narrative skills. One of the two educators demonstrated a significant increase in their use of oral language and emergent literacy promoting strategies in their day-to-day interactions with children. No significant changes were observed in the classroom environment.
UNASSIGNED: Interprofessional collaboration with a coaching component is an effective method of improving children\'s emergent literacy skills and educator instructional practices.

Implementation of pharmaceutical care for the benefit of patients and health services has been highlighted worldwide. Interprofessional collaboration between nurses, pharmacists, and physicians may contribute to raising awareness of pharmacological challenges, increasing quality, and minimising errors in pharmaceutical care. This study aimed to investigate how nurses, pharmacists, and physicians experience interprofessional collaboration in pharmaceutical care within community healthcare in Norway. The study had an explorative and descriptive design with a qualitative approach. Individual interviews were conducted with 12 healthcare personnel with key roles in pharmaceutical care within community healthcare services. The data were analysed using systematic text condensation. The results revealed three categories and four subcategories: The category \"Professional challenges\" contained the subcategories \"Blurred responsibilities\" and \"The importance of trust and continuity\". The category \"Organisational barriers\" contained the subcategories \"Lack of information exchange and suitable communications channels\" and \"Lack of time and meeting places\". The third category was \"Nurses-the important link\". This study reveals challenges to and factors of success in increasing high-quality and safe pharmaceutical care, knowledge that can be used in quality work in the community health services and as input in curriculum development for the three professions.

First recorded in 1928, people living with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at a three to four times higher risk of developing periodontal disease (PD) than non-diabetics; for those who smoke this risk increases up to ten times. However, many doctors are unaware of this.DM and PD are bidirectionally linked, the one affecting the other and vice versa, although the mechanism is not fully understood and may be linked to chronic infection. PD has an adverse effect on glycaemic control. That improves when periodontitis is successfully treated.Doctors should consider PD when their patients have persistently high glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels, and dentists should consider diabetes or pre-diabetes when they have patients with unstable or progressive periodontitis.Doctors, dentists, and their teams need to share results. A traffic light system of red, amber and green for both medical and dental risks is proposed, and a pro forma designed, so that diabetics themselves can share them with their professional advisors until such times as there are reliable methods of interprofessional communication and a paradigm shift in working practices is achieved.Dentists need to find ways to teach their medical colleagues about the basics of PD, update their medical records, and understand more about medical risks. More research is required.

BACKGROUND: Education in nursing has noticed a positive effect of simulation-based education. There are many studies available on the effects of simulation-based education, but most of those involve a single institution, nonrandomized controlled trials, small sample sizes and subjective evaluations of the effects. The purpose of this multicenter randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effects of high-fidelity simulation, computer-based simulation, high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation, and case study on undergraduate nursing students.
METHODS: A total of 270 nursing students were recruited from five universities in China. Participants were randomly divided into four groups at each institution: the high-fidelity simulation group, the computer-based simulation group, the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group, and the case study group. Finally, 239 participants completed the intervention and evaluation, with 58, 67, 57, and 57 participants in each group. The data were collected at three stages: before the intervention, immediately after the intervention, and three months after the intervention.
RESULTS: The demographic data and baseline evaluation indices did not significantly differ among the four groups. A statistically significant difference was not observed between the four methods for improving knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, or interest in learning. While skill improvement differed significantly among the different groups after the intervention (p = 0.020), after three months, no difference was observed (p = 0.139). The improvement in skill in the computer-based simulation group was significantly lower at the end of the intervention than that in the high-fidelity simulation group (p = 0.048) or the high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation group (p = 0.020).
CONCLUSIONS: Nursing students benefit equally from four methods in cultivating their knowledge, interprofessional collaboration, critical thinking, caring, and interest in learning both immediately and over time. High-fidelity simulation and high-fidelity simulation combined with computer-based simulation improve skill more effectively than computer-based simulation in the short term. Nursing educators can select the most suitable teaching method to achieve the intended learning outcomes depending on the specific circumstances.
BACKGROUND: This clinical trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (clinical trial number: ChiCTR2400084880, date of the registration: 27/05/2024).