JCPSLP Vol 20 No 2 July 2018

from SLPs and audiologists were collated and analysed as a single group, preventing within and between group comparisons for each of the professions. The benefits of the relationship between American school-based SLPs and audiologists have also been examined in the literature. Richburg and Knickelbein (2011) found 88% of the 209 SLPs surveyed in their study reported that IPC with audiologists was beneficial for complex clients; however, only 60% had access to audiologists for information regarding hearing status and devices (Richburg & Knickelbein, 2011). Therefore, SLPs were often assisting children who were deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH) without an audiologist’s assistance (Richburg & Knickelbein, 2011). As there is currently little literature available that explores the views of SLPs and audiologists on IPC in the Australian context, this current study examines the views (regarding experiences of and attitudes towards IPC) of Australian SLPs and audiologists. Specifically, this study aims to: 1. explore the perceptions of SLPs and audiologists regarding IPC; 2. consider differences in views between the professions; 3. consider whether experience of IPC differs with practice model (i.e., multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary). Method Research design Survey methodology was utilised for this study and involved development of an online survey and dissemination to Australian SLPs and audiologists. Ethical approval was received from University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (H-2016-0057). Survey development The online survey was created using SurveyMonkey© (https://www.surveymonkey.com) and consisted of multiple- choice questions, open-ended questions, and scaled questions. Scales included: (a) never , sometimes , neutral , most of the time and always ; and (b) strongly disagree , disagree , neutral , agree , and strongly agree ). Questions were drawn from previous research, including aspects of un/successful IPC (Pena & Quinn, 2003), benefits, and strategies for improvement (Eaton & Regan, 2015; Richburg & Knickelbein, 2011; Speech Pathology Australia, 2007). Questions also examined types of IPC (Mitchell, 2005), nature of information exchanged (King, Carter, Van Dun, Zhang, Pearce, & Ching, 2014), and knowledge of and attitude towards the other profession (Eaton & Regan, 2015; Pena & Quinn, 2003; Richburg & Knickelbein, 2011) Participants were recruited from six Australian organisations that provide care for clients who are D/HH and employ SLPs and/or audiologists. The organisations were contacted via email and could accept or decline the offer for employees to participate. The organisations disseminated the survey to employees via email, with a reminder sent two weeks later. To reach a larger prospective sample, an invitation and link to the survey was also distributed via social media (Twitter) within established SLP networks. To be eligible for the study, respondents needed to work in Australia with clients who were D/HH and have collaborated with the other professional group. Twenty-four SLPs and 17 audiologists responded to the survey. Participant demographic information is presented in Table 1. (see Appendix for a sample of questions). Recruitment of participants

Table 1. Demographics of speech-language pathologists and audiologists

Speech-language pathologists

Audiologists

Gender

Female: 100%

Female: 82% Male: 18%

Age

20–39 years: 67% 40–59 years: 33% Paediatric: 79% Adult: 16% Mixed: 5% 10 years or less: 96% More than 10 years: 4% Interdisciplinary: 46% Transdisciplinary: 12% Multidisciplinary: 33%

20–39 years: 71% 40–59 years: 29%

Paediatric: 0 Adult: 18% Mixed: 82%

Caseload

10 years of less: 53% More than 10 years: 47% Interdisciplinary: 35% Transdisciplinary: 12% Multidisciplinary: 47%

Time working with clients who were D/HH

Practice model

Data analysis Multiple-choice and scaled questions were analysed using descriptive statistics (for example, the frequency of responses). Descriptive statistics were used rather than in-depth statistical analysis due to the small sample size. As a result the findings were not expected to be representative of all SLPs/audiologists in Australia, nor necessarily generalise to the entire population. Responses to open- ended questions were analysed using content analysis to identify thematic trends in the data (Patton, 2002). Results Client benefits of IPC The majority of participants agreed that IPC provided a number of benefits to clients. In particular, agreement was very high for that statements suggesting that IPC provided a “holistic approach to care”, “improved continuity of care”, and “reduced client confusion” (Table 2). Speech-language pathologists perceived a high degree of benefit of IPC for client care across a number of different areas, with 100% of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing with 4/8 of the items (“improved continuity of care”; “increased client understanding of hearing diagnosis”; “increased understanding of clients’ hearing diagnosis by both professions”; “more holistic provision of information”). In contrast though, only 50% of SLP respondents and 33% of audiologists believed IPC increased efficiency of service provision and reduced the time clients spent with health care workers. Clinician benefits of interprofessional collaboration SLPs were more likely to identify the professional benefits of IPC including “job satisfaction” (96% of SLPs), “client satisfaction” (100% of SLPs), and effective use of staff resources (88% of SLPs). Audiologists were less likely to report that IPC resulted in effective use of staff resources or reduced intervention errors, with only 47% of respondents agreeing with these statements (Table 3). Expectations of interprofessional contact versus actual contact made Fifty-eight percent of SLPs agreed or strongly agreed they should contact the client’s audiologist after an assessment.

84

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 2 2018

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology