JCPSLP Vol 20 No 2 July 2018

Approximately 70% of both professions believed the other profession would benefit from further training. Facilitators and barriers to interprofessional collaboration Facilitators and barriers to IPC were explored through content analysis of responses to the open-ended questions (Table 4 and Table 5). Communication was the strongest facilitator of IPC, identified in 42% of SLPs’ and 53% of audiologists’ comments. In particular, use of language to facilitate shared understanding was important, with one SLP specifying the importance of “limited use of discipline specific jargon”. Other facilitators included: clinician knowledge, time, service provision (joint sessions and staffing) and common client goals. For example, survey participants noted that both staff required a “clear understanding of goals of the family”and needed to be towards the other profession encouraged IPC. Respondents also indicated that if factors such as communication, knowledge of other professional roles and attitudes towards collaborative practice were not successful, they could also hinder IPC. Poor communication was the most commonly reported barrier to IPC, making up 42% of the comments by SLPs and 53% by audiologists. One survey participant noted that ineffective communication between professions could be hinder IPC if “terms used were understood differently” or if information was provided in an “untimely” manner. Both professions suggested poor clinician knowledge and understanding of the other profession reduced IPC effectiveness. One audiologist commented that IPC was limited by speech pathologists being “unaware of current audiolgical practices”. willing to work in a way that encouraged “family centredness”. SLPs also reported that a strong understanding of professional boundaries assisted IPC, while audiologists suggested that the clinician’s attitude

Table 5. Facilitators of interprofessional collaboration identified by audiologists

Percent of audiologist comments a

Communication

53%

Client goals

20%

Clinician knowledge and understanding

9%

Clinician’s attitude

9%

Service provision

6%

Time

3%

Note. a n = 34 comments.

Differences in communication according to interprofessional collaboration practice model Consideration was given to whether IPC varied based on the practice model the participants utilised. The majority of responses for questions (including client and clinician benefits of IPC) did not vary based on practice model implemented. However, participants working in a transdisciplinary model were more likely to engage in case discussions and to communicate with the other profession before conducting an assessment, than those in a multidisciplinary practice model. Discussion This study examined the views of Australian SLPs and audiologists regarding IPC. Both professions were generally positive about IPC and suggested that both the client and the clinician benefited from this relationship. The survey results, consistent with Eaton and Regan (2015), Lubinski and Hudson (2013), and Glover et al. (2015), highlighted the benefits of IPC for the client, including holistic care and improved continuity of care and collaboration to reach mutual goals. These benefits also align with the definition and proposed outcomes of IPC (Lubinski & Hudson, 2013). Both professions believed they benefited from IPC through improved job satisfaction, professional development, and increased feedback on a client’s progress. However, SLPs and audiologists differed in regard to the impact of IPC on their job satisfaction, a factor which may impact on their willingness to engage in IPC in the future (Friend & Cook, 1992). Furthermore, results showed that knowledge of the other profession was variable among participants and between professions. This is also consistent with findings of Richburg and Knickelbein (2011) and Eaton and Regan (2015). Participants in this current study indicated that further training about the other profession would be beneficial. Both professions viewed the information they provided to and received from each other quite differently. In particular, SLPs felt they communicated well with audiologists and provided timely and helpful information; however, this was not always perceived as such by the audiologists. This finding highlights that a mismatch of expectations between the professions can potentially lead to dissatisfaction with communication and the degree of interprofessional collaboration. It could also result in differences in how SLPs and audiologists establish and enact treatment plans, consequently affecting client experiences of service.

Table 4. Facilitators of interprofessional collaboration identified by speech-language pathologists

Percent of speech-language pathologist comments a

Communication

42%

Clinician knowledge and understanding

18%

Service provision

11%

Professional boundaries

10%

Time

5%

Client goals

5%

Note. a n = 72 comments.

Strategies to improve interprofessional collaboration The main strategy identified by respondents to facilitate IPC was to enhance communication channels between professions. This was highlighted in 50% of audiologists’ and 55% of SLPs’ responses. Increased training for both professions was also suggested in 34% of audiologist and 9% of SLP comments.

86

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 2 2018

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology