JCPSLP Vol 20 No 2 July 2018

Entrepreneurship in speech-language pathology

Speech-language pathologists and audiologists working with deaf or hard of hearing clients in Australia Views on interprofessional collaboration Rebecca Smith, Nicole Byrne, and Megan Barr

Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) in health care occurs when different professions work together to improve client outcomes. IPC has many benefits for the clients and professionals involved. Various IPC practice models exist including: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary models, each involving different levels of collaboration and role sharing between professions. This study examined the views of Australian speech-language pathologists (SLPs) (n = 24) and audiologists (n = 17) on their experiences of IPC with the other profession via an online survey. Both professional groups had positive attitudes towards IPC, and reported various benefits including improved continuity of care, holistic provision of information, improved client understanding of their diagnosis and improved client satisfaction. The main facilitators of IPC were good communication skills, the clinician’s knowledge of the other profession, and having common client goals. However, a lack of each of these same factors resulted in barriers to IPC. To further improve the effectiveness of IPC, participants suggested both professions would benefit from training regarding the roles of the other profession. I nterprofessional collaboration (IPC) in the health care setting refers to professions working together to reach a common aim, which often results in optimal patient outcomes (Lubinski & Hudson, 2013). IPC achieves the best outcomes when all parties are voluntarily involved and are equally responsible for outcomes (Friend & Cook, 1992). IPC has various positive outcomes for the client including consistent care, improved care quality, and the sharing and understanding of discipline specific knowledge (Glover, McCormack, & Smith-Tamaray, 2015, World Health Organization, 2010). Types of interprofessional collaboration There are three IPC practice models: multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. While all collaborative

relationships follow one of these models, the model implemented may change based on the environmental context, or the client’s needs (Mitchell, 2005). In the multidisciplinary model, the disciplines work alongside, but separately, from each other and each professional completes tasks within their own range of practice. The client’s goals remain separate between professions. In comparison, the interdisciplinary model involves disciplines working together on common goals, while still working within their professional boundaries. Lastly, the transdisciplinary model involves role sharing across different disciplines to achieve client goals. In this model, a professional may complete tasks outside their scope of practice (Mitchell, 2005). Facilitators and barriers to interprofessional collaboration A number of facilitators and barriers to IPC have been identified. Effective communication, information sharing and an adequate understanding of the roles of each profession are reported as facilitators of IPC (D’Amour, Goulet, Labadie, Martin-Rodriguez & Pineault, 2008; Eaton & Regan, 2015). D’Amour et al. (2008) suggested that trust between involved parties, shared client goals, and local leadership also supported IPC. In contrast, barriers to IPC included negative attitudes towards the other professions, Eaton and Regan (2015) conducted a literature review and found limited evidence describing IPC between speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and audiologists and their perceptions of this relationship. In that study the perceptions of 171 Canadian SLPs and audiologists regarding IPC were examined through a secondary analysis of a mixed method survey. Participants reported IPC improved client care (97%), was in the public’s best interest (96%), and that their workplace could improve utilisation of IPC through various strategies (for example, joint education programs) (93%). Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions showed how IPC was influenced by the time available to discuss clients between clinicians and through role sharing between professions (where a task could be completed by either health professional involved). It was also influenced by workplace support of IPC through policies that allowed for referrals between professions within a workplace (Eaton & Regan, 2015). Despite the large sample size of Eaton and Regan’s (2015) study, data poor communication, and reduced knowledge of professional boundaries (Eaton & Regan, 2015).

KEYWORDS AUDIOLOGIST AUSTRALIA INTER-

PROFESSIONAL COLLABORATION SPEECH- LANGUAGE PATHOLOGIST THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN PEER- REVIEWED

Rebecca Smith (top), Nicole Byrne (centre) and Megan Barr

83

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 2 2018

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au