Advanced practice nursing in Europe-Results from a pan-European survey of 35 countries.

AIM: To report the results of a mapping exercise by the European Federation of Nurses on current advanced practice nursing frameworks and developments across Europe. DESIGN: Online, cross-sectional, questionnaire study. METHODS: An online questionnaire was distributed among 35 national nurses' associations across Europe in March 2021. The questionnaire solicited input on 60 items concerning key features of advanced practice nursing, intending to map existing developments and better understand the current state of advanced practice nursing in Europe. Data analysis used descriptive statistics, including counts and percentages, tabulation; open-text responses were handled with thematic synthesis techniques. RESULTS: The definition, sense-making and operationalization of advanced practice nursing vary across Europe. Important variations were noted in the definition and requirements of advanced practice nursing, resulting in different views on the competencies and scope of practice associated with this role. Importantly, the level of education and training required to qualify and practice as an advanced practice nurse varies across European countries. Furthermore, only 11 countries reported the existence of a national legislation establishing minimum educational requirements. CONCLUSION: Significant variation exists in how countries define advanced practice nursing and how it is regulated at academic and practice levels. More research is needed to clarify whether this variation results from designing models of advanced practice nursing that work in different contexts; and what impact a standardized regulatory framework could have to grow the volume of advanced practice nurses across Europe. IMPACT: The current paper exposes the lack of clarity on the development and implementation of advanced practice nursing across Europe. We found significant variation in the definition, recognition, regulation and education of advanced practice nurses. Our data are essential to policymakers, professional associations and employers to ensure a coordinated and systematic effort in the consistency and ongoing development of advanced practice nurses across Europe. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution applied; the participants were national nurses' associations.

Team climate and patients' perception of primary healthcare attributes in Brazil: a cross-sectional study.

Team climate and attributes of primary healthcare (PHC) are key elements for collaborative practice. Few researchers have explored the relationship between team climate and patients' perceptions of PHC. This study aimed to assess the association between team climate and patients' perceptions of primary healthcare attributes. A quantitative approach was adopted. In Stage 1, Team climate was assessed using Team Climate Inventory in 118 Family Health Strategy (FHS) teams at a PHC setting. In Stage 2, Patients' perceptions of PHC attributes were assessed using the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool) in a sample of 844 patients enrolled in teams studied in Stage 1. Cluster analysis was used to identify team climate groups. The analysis used multilevel linear regression models. Patients assigned to teams with the highest team climate scores had the highest PHC attributes scores. Patients who reported affiliation at the team level had the highest PCATool scores overall. They also scored higher on the attributes of comprehensiveness and coordinated care compared to patients with affiliation to the health unit. In conclusion, patients under the care of FHS teams exhibiting a more favorable team climate had more positive patient perceptions of PHC attributes.

Evolving global responses to the pandemic: sustaining interprofessional education and collaborative practice.

The COVID-19 pandemic created global disruption in health professions education and healthcare practice, necessitating an abrupt move to digital delivery. A longitudinal survey was conducted to track the evolution of global responses to the pandemic. During the initial stages, educational and health institutions were forced to adapt quickly without careful consideration of optimal pedagogy, practices, and effectiveness of implemented approaches. In this paper, we report the results of Phase 3 of the global survey that was distributed between November 2021 and February 2022 through InterprofessionalResearch.Global (IPR.Global). The Phase 3 qualitative survey received 27 responses, representing 25 institutions from 13 countries in 6 regions. Using inductive thematic analysis, the data analysis resulted in three emerging themes: Impact of the pandemic on the delivery of interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP); Impact of the pandemic on the healthcare system (team, population/client health, clients); and Sustainability and innovation. This study highlights the evolving nature of health education and collaborative practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. IPECP educators need to be resilient and deal with the complexities of face-to-face and digital learning delivery. Preparing for emerging forms of teamwork is essential for new work contexts and optimal health services.

Sociomaterial perspective as applied in interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a scoping review.

Learning and working together towards better health outcomes today have become more complex requiring an investigation on how interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaboration (IPC) practices could be sustained and further developed. Through a sociomaterial perspective, we can better understand IPE and IPC practices by foregrounding the material aspect of learning and working together and examining its relationship with humans and their interactions. This article aimed to examine existing literature that discusses the application of sociomaterial perspectives in IPE and IPC. A scoping review was conducted following Arksey and O'Malley's framework to explore the extent within the current body of knowledge that discuss how sociomaterial perspective is applied in IPE and IPC practices. A systematic database search was performed in September 2021 to retrieve literature published from 2007 onwards, with forty-three papers meeting the inclusion criteria. These papers included research articles, book chapters, conference papers and commentaries, with the majority originating from Europe. The thematic analysis revealed the following themes: (1) power as a sociomaterial entity shaping IPE and IPC; (2) inclusion of non-health professionals in reimagining IPE and IPC practices, and (3) the critical understanding of sociomateriality. The findings suggest that a sociomaterial perspective can allow for the reimagination of the contemporary and future practices of interprofessionalism.

The perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interprofessional education and collaborative practice: preliminary results from phase I of a global survey.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a sizable effect on interprofessional education and collaborative practice (IPECP) globally, yet much of the available literature on the topic remains anecdotal and locally bounded. This body of literature reflects celebratory and aspirational reports, with many case studies of successful response and perseverance under conditions of extreme pressure. There is, however, a more worrisome narrative emerging that pointed to differences in pandemic response with concerns raised about the sustainability of IPECP during and after the pandemic. The COVID-19 task force of InterprofessionalResearch.Global (IPRGlobal) set out to capture the successes and challenges of the interprofessional community over the pandemic through a longitudinal survey, with a view to inform global attempts at recovery and resilience. In this article, we report preliminary findings from Phase 1 of the survey. Phase 1 of the survey was sent to institutions/organizations in IPRGlobal (representing over 50 countries from Europe, North and South America, Australia, and Africa). The country-level response rate was over 50%. Key opportunities and challenges include the abrupt digitalization of collaborative learning and practice; de-prioritization of interprofessional education (IPE); and rise in interprofessional collaborative spirit. Implications for IPECP pedagogy, research, and policy post-pandemic are considered.

The evidence base for interprofessional education within health professions education: A protocol for an update review.

Interprofessional education (IPE) interventions aiming to promote collaborative competence and improve the delivery of health and social care processes and outcomes continue to evolve. This paper reports on a protocol for an update review that we will conduct to identify and describe how the IPE evidence base has evolved in the last 7 years. We will identify literature through a systematic search of the following electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Education Source, ERIC, and BEI. We will consider all IPE interventions delivered to health professions students and accredited professionals. Peer-reviewed empirical research studies published in any language from June 2014 onwards will be eligible for inclusion. The outcomes of interest are changes in the reaction, attitudes/perceptions, knowledge/skills acquisition, behaviors, organizational practice, and/or benefits to patients. We will perform each task of screening, critical appraisal, data abstraction, and synthesis using at least two members of the review team. The review will enable an update and comprehensive understanding of the IPE evidence base to inform future IPE developments, delivery and evaluation across education and clinical settings.

Factors that contributed to burnout among intensive care nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia: A constructivist grounded theory.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses experience high levels of burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic due to multiple stressors. It has long been known that burnout is negatively associated with patient and staff outcomes. Understanding the triggers for intensive care nurses' burnout during the pandemic can help to develop appropriate mitigation measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine intensive care nurses' experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic in Saudi Arabia to develop insights into the factors that influenced burnout. METHODS: The study was informed by a constructivist grounded theory design. The study was conducted in an adult ICU in a tertiary hospital in the Makkah province in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. All participants were registered nurses with at least 6 months' experience in intensive care and experienced caring for COVID-19 patients. FINDINGS: This paper reports on preliminary findings from interviews with 22 intensive care nurses. A core category 'pandemic pervasiveness' was identified from the interview data, which makes reference to the ever-present nature of the pandemic beyond the ICU context. Family, work, and the wider world context are the three groups of contextual factors that influenced nurses' experience and perception of burnout. CONCLUSION: Many issues identified from the findings in this study can be attributed to shortages in the intensive care nursing workforce. Thus, we join others in calling for healthcare organisations and policymakers to be creative in finding new ways to meet nurses' needs, motivate, and empower them to maintain and sustain the nursing workforce in highly demanding areas, such as ICUs. Nursing managers can play a crucial role in mitigating nurses' burnout by identifying and tackling sources of stress that exist among their staff, specifically team conflict, workplace harassment, and discrimination.

Workplace Violence Against Nurses: Challenges and Solutions for Europe.

We report the results of a mapping exercise by the European Federation of Nurses (EFN) on challenges and solutions related to violence against nurses. This is an issue of growing international concern, with the problem accentuated during and following the COVID-19 pandemic. Following a cross-sectional observational design, an online questionnaire was distributed among 35 national nurses' associations across Europe in March 2021. Face validity was achieved through an expert panel. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis, including counts, percentages, and tabulation. Qualitative data analysis followed thematic synthesis techniques. Three main findings are noted. First, violent incidents against nurses are under-reported due to fear of victimization, employer discouragement, and the perception that reporting will not make any difference. Second, perpetrators of violent acts extend beyond patients and families to include health professionals of different ranks. Third, violent incidences have a significant adverse effect on nurses' health and retention, leading to nurses reducing their working hours or opting for part-time work. Violence against nurses is an expression of a broader problem that is rooted in the failure to recognize and manage violence at the level of the healthcare organization, and the absence of appropriate legislation to maintain minimum standards of safe working environments. This is partly the result of inadequate European Union-wide legislation targeting workplace violence in the health professions. Nurses need more institutional support through dedicated funding aimed at targeted interventions, more legislative commitment to ratify policies against discrimination, and an opportunity to voice the needs to the appropriate policymakers with the ability to bring significant change to existing conditions. Given the severity of the situation, inaction could lead to irreplaceable damage to the nursing workforce, compounding pressures resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this situation can further drive existing nurses out of the profession, weakening health systems worldwide.

Impact of and mitigation measures for burnout in frontline healthcare workers during disasters: A mixed-method systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Burnout is a global concern for the healthcare community, especially following a disaster response. It is a major obstacle to providing safe and quality health care. Avoiding burnout is essential to ensuring adequate healthcare delivery and preventing psychological and physical health problems and errors among healthcare staff. AIMS: This study aimed to determine the impact of burnout on healthcare staff working on the frontline in a disaster context, including pandemics, epidemics, natural disasters, and man-made disasters; and to identify interventions used to mitigate burnout among those healthcare professionals before, during, or after the disaster. METHOD: A mixed methods systematic review was used and included a joint analysis and synthesis of data from qualitative and quantitative studies. The was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses (PRISMA) of qualitative and quantitative evidence. Several databases were searched, for example, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINAHL. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT), version 2018. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies addressed the impact of burnout in relation to disasters and highlighted the association between burnout and the physical or mental well-being of healthcare workers, work performance, and workplace attitude and behavior. Fourteen studies focused on different burnout interventions including psychoeducational interventions, reflection and self-care activities, and administering a pharmacological product. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Stakeholders should consider reducing risk of burnout among healthcare staff as an approach to improving quality and optimizing patient care. The evidence points to reflective and self-care interventions having a more positive effect on reducing burnout than other interventions. However, most of these interventions did not report on long-term effects. Further research needs to be undertaken to assess not only the feasibility and effectiveness but also the sustainability of interventions targeted to mitigate burnout in healthcare workers.

Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being.

BACKGROUND: Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.

Interprofessional educators' competencies, assessment, and training - IPEcat: protocol of a global consensus study.

Contemporary practice in interprofessional education (IPE) has evolved predominantly focusing on the competencies for interprofessional collaboration (IPC) that learners must acquire. Competencies that educators need to successfully deliver IPC have been overlooked. This lack of attention is further confounded by a field replete with inconsistent terminology and standards and no global consensus on the core competencies needed for IPE facilitation. There are no globally accepted tools to assess interprofessional educators' competencies nor are there established training programmes that might be used as the basis for a collective global approach to these issues. The International Working Group for Interprofessional Educators Competencies, Assessment, and Training (IWG_IPEcat) seeks to address this gap using a sequential mixed-method approach, to deliver globally developed, empirically derived tools to foster IPE educator competencies. This article presents the protocol of the research project.

The effectiveness of faculty development activities for interprofessional education : A systematic review protocol.

Despite increasing international demand for interprofessional education (IPE) in health care, there remains limited understanding of the kind of faculty development (FD) activities needed. This paper reports on a protocol for a systematic review to answer the question: What are the available FD activities for IPE facilitators, and which are more effective? The review aims to identify principles and methods to develop competent facilitators in IPE and to identify the implications and effects of FD for IPE concerning individuals, organizations, education, and health practice. Literature was identified through systematic searches in the electronic databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Eric (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Scopus, and Web of Science. There will be no restrictions on language or publication period. Screening of potential studies will be completed independently by at least two reviewers. The research quality of studies will be assessed for methodological rigor using established instruments based on the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. Search results will be summarized using the PRISMA flow diagram. The proposed review seeks to provide clarity on the evidence base of FD for IPE facilitators, to strengthen future design and delivery of FD activities, and to enable ongoing success of this educational model.

Healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of critical care telemedicine (CCT): qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Critical care telemedicine (CCT) has long been advocated for enabling access to scarce critical care expertise in geographically-distant areas. Additional advantages of CCT include the potential for reduced variability in treatment and care through clinical decision support enabled by the analysis of large data sets and the use of predictive tools. Evidence points to health systems investing in telemedicine appearing better prepared to respond to sudden increases in demand, such as during pandemics. However, challenges with how new technologies such as CCT are implemented still remain, and must be carefully considered. OBJECTIVES: This synthesis links to and complements another Cochrane Review assessing the effects of interactive telemedicine in healthcare, by examining the implementation of telemedicine specifically in critical care. Our aim was to identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative research evidence on healthcare stakeholders' perceptions and experiences of factors affecting the implementation of CCT, and to identify factors that are more likely to ensure successful implementation of CCT for subsequent consideration and assessment in telemedicine effectiveness reviews. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science for eligible studies from inception to 14 October 2019; alongside 'grey' and other literature searches. There were no language, date or geographic restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis. Studies included views from healthcare stakeholders including bedside and CCT hub critical care personnel, as well as administrative, technical, information technology, and managerial staff, and family members. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data using a predetermined extraction sheet. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist to assess the methodological rigour of individual studies. We followed the Best-fit framework approach using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform our data synthesis.  We classified additional themes not captured by CFIR under a separate theme. We used the GRADE CERQual approach to assess confidence in the findings. MAIN RESULTS: We found 13 relevant studies. Twelve were from the USA and one was from Canada. Where we judged the North American focus of the studies to be a concern for a finding's relevance, we have reflected this in our assessment of confidence in the finding. The studies explored the views and experiences of bedside and hub critical care personnel; administrative, technical, information technology, and managerial staff; and family members. The intensive care units (ICUs) were from tertiary hospitals in urban and rural areas. We identified several factors that could influence the implementation of CCT. We had high confidence in the following findings: Hospital staff and family members described several advantages of CCT. Bedside and hub staff strongly believed that the main advantage of CCT was having access to experts when bedside physicians were not available. Families also valued having access to critical care experts. In addition, hospital staff described how CCT could support clinical decision-making and mentoring of junior staff.  Hospital staff greatly valued the nature and quality of social networks between the bedside and CCT hub teams. Key issues for them were trust, acceptance, teamness, familiarity and effective communication between the two teams. Interactions between some bedside and CCT hub staff were featured with tension, frustration and conflict. Staff on both sides commonly described disrespect of their expertise, resistance and animosity. Hospital staff thought it was important to promote and offer training in the use of CCT before its implementation. This included rehearsing every step in the process, offering staff opportunities to ask questions and disseminating learning resources. Some also complained that experienced staff were taken away from bedside care and re-allocated to the CCT hub team. Hospital staff's attitudes towards, knowledge about and value placed on CCT influenced acceptance of CCT. Staff were positive towards CCT because of its several advantages. But some were concerned that the CCT hub staff were not able to understand the patient's situation through the camera. Some were also concerned about confidentiality of patient data. We also identified other factors that could influence the implementation of CCT, although our confidence in these findings is moderate or low. These factors included the extent to which telemedicine software was adaptable to local needs, and hub staff were aware of local norms; concerns about additional administrative work and cost; patients' and families' desire to stay close to their local community; the type of hospital setting; the extent to which there was support from senior leadership; staff access to information about policies and procedures; individuals' stage of change; staff motivation, competence and values; clear strategies for staff engagement; feedback about progress; and the impact of CCT on staffing levels. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our review identified several factors that could influence the acceptance and use of telemedicine in critical care. These include the value that hospital staff and family members place on having access to critical care experts, staff access to sufficient training, and the extent to which healthcare providers at the bedside and the critical care experts supporting them from a distance acknowledge and respect each other's expertise. Further research, especially in contexts other than North America, with different cultures, norms and practices will strengthen the evidence base for the implementation of CCT internationally and our confidence in these findings. Implementation of CCT appears to be growing in importance in the context of global pandemic management, especially in countries with wide geographical dispersion and limited access to critical care expertise. For successful implementation, policymakers and other stakeholders should consider pre-empting and addressing factors that may affect implementation, including strengthening teamness between bedside and hub teams; engaging and supporting frontline staff; training ICU clinicians on the use of CCT prior to its implementation; and ensuring staff have access to information and knowledge about when, why and how to use CCT for maximum benefit.

Top tips for interprofessional education and collaborative practice research: a guide for students and early career researchers.

Interprofessional research within the contexts of education and health and social care practice has grown exponentially within the past three decades. To maintain the momentum of high-quality research, it is important that early career researchers embarking on their first research journey and new to interprofessional education or interprofessional collaborative practice feel supported in making their contribution to the field. This guide, developed by the Center for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education (CAIPE) Research Group, has been written with these groups in mind who are embarking on their first research journey, and new to the interprofessional field. It aims to raise awareness of academic resources and share practical advice from those who have previously experienced problems when undertaking interprofessional research in education or health and social care practice.

A longitudinal survey on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on interprofessional education and collaborative practice: a study protocol.

Since the World Health Organisation declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic in early March 2020, the virus has been linked with serious illness, death, and social disruption around the world. The scope of the outbreak is rapidly evolving and ever changing. Many countries, cities and towns declared major closures and issued shelter-in-place orders. While phased re-opening is now occuring in many countries, the impact of the pandemic has been unprecedented. It is widely accepted that healthcare education and practice, including interprofessional education and collaborative practice, has been and will continue to be affected in profound ways. However, the severity and extent of the impact is yet to be determined and is likely to vary internationally. The study protocol reported here is a first attempt to systematically capture observations, experiences, and reflections globally with a view to identifying priorities for interprofessional education and collaborative practice research and development in the years to come, as well as inform future pandemic preparedness.

Doing interprofessional research in the COVID-19 era: a discussion paper.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and ensuing physical distancing measures, poses challenges for researchers in the field of interprofessional care. Pandemic management has highlighted the centrality of interprofessional working to effective healthcare delivery during crises. It is essential to find ways to maintain interprofessional research that has commenced, while also designing research to capture important learning from pandemic management and response. However, it also creates opportunities for new research projects and novel research designs. This discussion paper explores ways of adapting existing research methodologies and outlines potential avenues for new research. Specifically, considerations to bear in mind when designing interprofessional research during the pandemic include research ethics and integrity, research design, data collection methods, research opportunities, implications and limitations. Interprofessional research can continue to make a valuable contribution in informing global responses to COVID-19 and in planning for future global health crises. We call for, insofar as possible, for interprofessional research to continue to be developed during this time.

The COVID-19 crisis silver lining: interprofessional education to guide future innovation.

Globally, the advent and rapid spread of the COVID-19 virus has created significant disruption to health professions education and practice, and consequently interprofessional education, leading to a model of learning and practicing where much is unknown. Key questions for this ongoing evolution emerge for the global context leading to reflections on future directions for the interprofessional education field and its role in shaping future practice models. Health professions programs around the world have made a dramatic shift to virtual learning platforms in response to closures of academic institutions and restrictions imposed on learners accessing practice settings. Telemedicine, slow to become established in many countries to date, has also revolutionized practice in the current environment. Within the state of disruption and rapid change is the awareness of a silver lining that provides an opportunity for future growth. Key topics explored in this commentary include reflection on the application of existing competency frameworks, consideration of typology of team structures, reconsideration of theoretical underpinnings, revisiting of core dimensions of education, adaptation of interprofessional education activities, and the role in the future pandemic planning. As an international community of educators and researchers, the authors consider current observations relevant to interprofessional education and practice contexts and suggest a response from scholarship voices across the globe. The current pandemic offers a unique opportunity for educators, practitioners, and researchers to retain what has served interprofessional education and practice well in the past, break from what has not worked as well, and begin to imagine the new.

Examining the nature of interprofessional practice: An initial framework validation and creation of the InterProfessional Activity Classification Tool (InterPACT).

The practice of, and research on interprofessional working in healthcare, commonly referred to as teamwork, has been growing rapidly. This has attracted international policy support flowing from the growing belief that patient safety and quality of care can only be achieved through the collective effort of the multiple professionals caring for a given patient. Despite the increasing policy support, the evidence for effectiveness lags behind: while there are supporting analytic epidemiological studies, few reliable intervention studies have been published and so we have yet to confirm a causal link. We argue that this lag in evidence development may be because interprofessional terms (e.g. teamwork, collaboration) remain conceptually unclear, with no common terminology or definitions, making it difficult to distinguish interventions from each other. In this paper, we examine published studies from the last decade in order to elicit current usage of terms related to interprofessional working; and, in so doing, undertake an initial empirical validation of an existing conceptual framework by mapping its four categories (teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking) against the descriptions of interprofessional interventions in the included studies. We searched Medline and Embase for papers describing interprofessional interventions using a standard approach. We independently screened papers and classified these under set categories following a thematic approach. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Twenty papers met our inclusion criteria. Identified interprofessional work interventions fall into a range, from looser to tighter links between members. Definitions are inconsistently and inadequately applied. We found the framework to be a helpful and practical tool for classifying such interventions more consistently. Our analysis enabled us to scrutinise the original dimensions of the framework, confirm their usefulness and consistency, and reveal new sub-categories. We propose a slightly revised typology and a classification tool (InterPACT) for future validation, with four mutually exclusive categories: teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking. Consistent use, further examination and refinement of the new typology and tool may lead to greater clarity in definition and design of interventions. This should support the development of a reliable and coherent evidence base on interventions to promote interprofessional working in health and social care.