A model of multidisciplinary professional development for health professionals in rural Canterbury, New Zealand
Susan Bidwell 1 , Andrea Copeland 11 Pegasus Health (Charitable) Ltd, 401 Madras Street, Christchurch 8013, New Zealand
Correspondence to: Susan Bidwell, Pegasus Health (Charitable) Ltd, PO Box 741, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand. Email: susan.bidwell@pegasus.org.nz
Journal of Primary Health Care 9(4) 292-296 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC17049
Published: 12 December 2017
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2017.
This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pegasus Health Charitable Ltd, a Christchurch Primary Health Organisation, is contracted by the Canterbury District Health Board to provide continuing professional development for primary care practitioners in the region. Rurally located health practitioners have largely been unable to participate because of the travel time and distances involved.
AIM: The initiative reported in this paper aimed to fill this gap by developing an accessible and high-quality multidisciplinary model of professional development for general practitioners, nurse practitioners, practice nurses and community pharmacists in rural areas of North Canterbury, New Zealand.
METHODS: A survey was conducted to learn from the experiences of 14 health professionals in an existing multidisciplinary group, which had developed as a local initiative in one rural community.
RESULTS: The survey had an 86% response rate. All respondents believed the multidisciplinary format worked well, had improved collaborative working and increased the consistency of patient care. Access to professional development had improved and the meetings provided a useful forum for the mostly part-time staff to interact as a group. The main caution noted was the potential to become inward looking without being exposed to fresh ideas from other practices.
DISCUSSION: The multidisciplinary model was considered workable and valuable by the survey respondents. Based on our findings, the multidisciplinary model has been formalised by the Pegasus team responsible, and three new groups are now operating successfully in rural areas of North Canterbury.
KEYWORDS: Continuing professional development; rural
References
[1] Bourke L, Sheridan C, Russell U, et al. Developing a conceptual understanding of rural health practice. Aust J Rural Health. 2004; 12 181–6.| Developing a conceptual understanding of rural health practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] Jones JA, Humphreys JS, Adena MA. Doctors’ perspectives on the viability of rural practice. Rural Remote Health. 2004; 4 305
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2M3ksl2itA%3D%3D&md5=93a79b5b2f620d80241aafc16b2ead19CAS |
[3] McNeil K, Mitchell R, Parker V. The paradoxical effects of workforce shortages on rural interprofessional practice. Scand J Caring Sci. 2015; 29 73–82.
| The paradoxical effects of workforce shortages on rural interprofessional practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[4] Little F, Brown L, Grotowski M, et al. Nourishing networks: an interprofessional learning model and its application to the Australian rural health workforce. Rural Remote Health. 2012; 12 2022
| 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3s7gtl2rsw%3D%3D&md5=0774f9e28b6c45b55274d2b0d99bc426CAS |
[5] Myhre DL, Bajaj S, Jackson W. Determinants of an urban origin student choosing rural practice: a scoping review. Rural Remote Health 2015; 15 3483
[6] Parker V, McNeil K, Higgins I, et al. How health professionals conceive and construct interprofessional practice in rural settings: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013; 13 500
| How health professionals conceive and construct interprofessional practice in rural settings: a qualitative study.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Spencer J, Woodroffe J, Cross M, et al. “A golden opportunity”: Exploring interprofessional learning and practice in rural clinical settings. J Interprof Care. 2015; 29 389–91.
| “A golden opportunity”: Exploring interprofessional learning and practice in rural clinical settings.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[8] Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. A National Interprofessional Competency Framework. Vancouver, BC: Canadian Interprofessional Heath Collaborative; 2010.
[9] Ministry of Health. Working together for Better Primary Health Care: overcoming barriers to workforce change and innovation. Report to the Ministry of Health from the Workforce Taskforce. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2008.
[10] World Health Organisation. Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2010.
[11] Elissen AM, van Raak AJ, Paulus AT. Can we make sense of multidisciplinary co-operation in primary care by considering routines and rules? Health Soc Care Community. 2011; 19 33–42.
| Can we make sense of multidisciplinary co-operation in primary care by considering routines and rules?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] McDonald J, Jayasuriya R, Harris MF. The influence of power dynamics and trust on multidisciplinary collaboration: a qualitative case study of type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012; 12 63
| The influence of power dynamics and trust on multidisciplinary collaboration: a qualitative case study of type 2 diabetes mellitus.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[13] Nandan M, Scott PA. Interprofessional practice and education: holistic approaches to complex health care challenges. J Allied Health. 2014; 43 150–6.
[14] Félix-Bortolotti M. Primary health care workforce policy intricacies: multidisciplinary team case analysis. Part 2. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011; 17 400–4.
| Primary health care workforce policy intricacies: multidisciplinary team case analysis. Part 2.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[15] Hogg W, Lemelin J, Dahrouge S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of anticipatory and preventive multidisciplinary team care: for complex patients in a community-based primary care setting. Can Fam Physician. 2009; 55 e76–85.
[16] Reeves S, Perrier L, Goldman J, et al. Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; CD002213
[17] Strachan AN, Graham AC, Hormis AP, et al. What were the perceptions of primary care teams on learning from a single multidisciplinary simulation-based training intervention? Educ Prim Care. 2011; 22 229–34.
| What were the perceptions of primary care teams on learning from a single multidisciplinary simulation-based training intervention?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[18] Hays RB. Interprofessional education in rural practice: how, when and where? Rural Remote Health. 2008; 8 939
[19] Smith T, Stone N, Bull R, et al. Australian Rural Health Education Network’s position on interprofessional education and practice in health care. Rural Remote Health. 2007; 7 866
[20] Puskar K, Mitchell AM, Albrecht SA, et al. Interprofessional collaborative practice incorporating training for alcohol and drug use screening for healthcare providers in rural areas. J Interprof Care. 2016; 30 542–4.
| Interprofessional collaborative practice incorporating training for alcohol and drug use screening for healthcare providers in rural areas.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
