ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore views of women and health care providers (HCPs) about the changing recommendations regarding maternal age-based prenatal screening. DESIGN: Mixed-methods design. SETTING: Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of women who had given birth within the previous 2 years and who had attended a family medicine centre, midwifery practice, or baby and mother wellness program (n = 42); and a random sample of family physicians (n = 1600), and all Ontario obstetricians (n = 694) and midwives (n = 334) who provided prenatal care. METHODS: We used focus groups (FGs) to explore women's views. Content analysis was used to uncover themes and delineate meaning. To explore HCPs' views, we conducted a cross-sectional self-completion survey. MAIN FINDINGS: All FG participants (42 women in 6 FGs) expressed the importance of individual choice of prenatal screening modality, regardless of age. They described their perception that society considers women older than 35 to be at high obstetric risk and raised concerns that change in the maternal age-related screening policy would require education. The HCP survey response rate was 40%. Results showed 24% of HCPs agreed that women of any age should be eligible for invasive diagnostic testing regardless of prenatal screening results; 15% agreed that the age for diagnostic testing should be increased to 40 years, 14% agreed that diagnostic testing should be reserved for women with positive prenatal screening results, and 45% agreed that prenatal screening should remain unchanged. CONCLUSION: Maternity care organizations have recommended that maternal age-based prenatal screening is no longer appropriate. Informed choice is of paramount importance to women and should be part of any change. Health care providers need to be engaged in and educated about any change to screening guidelines to offer women informed choices.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Chromosome Disorders/diagnosis , Genetic Testing/methods , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Maternal Age , Prenatal Diagnosis/psychology , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Family Practice/methods , Female , Focus Groups , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Midwifery/methods , Obstetrics/methods , Patient Preference , Patient Selection , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Pregnancy , Prenatal Diagnosis/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young AdultABSTRACT
The facilitation of learners from different professional groups requires a range of interprofessional knowledge and skills (e.g. an understanding of possible sources of tension between professions) in addition to those that are more generic, such as how to manage a small group of learners. The development and delivery of interprofessional education (IPE) programs tends to rely on a small cohort of facilitators who have typically gained expertise through 'hands-on' involvement in facilitating IPE and through mentorship from more experienced colleagues. To avoid burn-out and to meet a growing demand for IPE, a larger number of facilitators are needed. However, empirical evidence regarding effective approaches to prepare for this type of work is limited. This article draws on data from a multiple case study of four IPE programs based in an urban setting in North America with a sample of neophyte facilitators and provides insight into their perceptions and experiences in preparing for and delivering IPE. Forty-one semi-structured interviews were conducted before (n = 20) and after (n = 21) program delivery with 21 facilitators. Findings indicated that despite participating in a three-fold faculty development strategy designed to support them in their IPE facilitation work, many felt unprepared and continued to have a poor conceptual understanding of core IPE and interprofessional collaboration principles, resulting in problematic implications (e.g. 'missed teachable moments') within their IPE programs. Findings from this study are discussed in relation to the IPE, faculty development and wider educational literature before implications are offered for the future delivery of interprofessional faculty development activities.
Subject(s)
Faculty/standards , Interprofessional Relations , Professional Competence , Social Facilitation , Staff Development/methods , Cooperative Behavior , Educational Status , Humans , Learning , Ontario , Organizational Case Studies , Qualitative Research , TeachingABSTRACT
Collaboration between hospitals and community organisations has been promoted over the past 20 years by various levels of government, hospital associations, health promotion advocates, and others at the state/province, national and international levels as a way to improve the 'efficiency of the system', reduce duplication, enhance effectiveness and service coordination, improve continuity of care, and enhance community capacity to address complex issues. Nevertheless, and despite a growing literature on interagency collaboration, systematic documentation and empirical analysis of hospital-community collaboration (HCC) is almost completely lacking in the literature, particularly as regards collaborations that address the determinants of health beyond the hospital walls. In this paper, we describe the methodology and key findings from a research study of HCC. The Hospital Involvement in Community Action (HICA) study undertook detailed qualitative case studies (in four urban, suburban, rural and northern locations) and a telephone survey (of 139 community organisations in a large urban centre) in order to learn about the range of collaborations and working relationships that exist between hospitals and community agencies in the province of Ontario (Canada), and the factors that influenced (enabled and/or hindered) HCC. Particular attention was paid to barriers and enablers at three nested levels of context (policy, hospital and community) and, drawing primarily on the qualitative case studies, it is this aspect that is the focus of this paper. That such collaborations continue to be widespread despite a generally unfavourable policy environment and hospital institutional culture that poses significant barriers, suggests that the extent to which HCC flourishes (or exists at all) crucially depends on the presence and ongoing enthusiasm/commitment of one or more 'champions' within the hospital, and the commitment of both parties to overcome the marked cultural differences between hospital and community. We conclude with a discussion of implications for policy and practice.