Interprofessional collaboration in the home care setting: perspectives of people receiving home care, relatives, nurses, general practitioners, and therapists-results of a qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: About one million people in need of home care in Germany are assisted by 15,400 home care services. Home healthcare is mostly a complex endeavour because interprofessional collaboration is often challenging. This might negatively impact patient safety. The project interprof HOME aims to develop an interprofessional person-centred care concept for people receiving home care in a multistep approach. In one of the work packages we explored how people receiving home care, relatives, nurses, general practitioners, and therapists (physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and speech therapists) perceive collaboration in this setting. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 people receiving home care and with 21 relatives. Additionally, we worked with nine monoprofessional focus groups involving nurses of home care services (n = 17), general practitioners (n = 14), and therapists (n = 21). The data were analysed by content analysis. RESULTS: Three main categories evolved: "perception of interprofessional collaboration", "means of communication", and "barriers and facilitators". People receiving home care and relatives often perceive little to no interprofessional collaboration and take over a significant part of the organisational coordination and information exchange. Interprofessional collaboration in steady care situations does exist at times and mostly occurs in coordination tasks. Contact and information exchange are rare, however, interprofessional personal encounters are sporadic, and fixed agreements and permanent contact persons are not standard. These trends increase with the complexity of the healthcare situation. Joint collaborations are often perceived as highly beneficial. Means of communications such as telephone, fax, or e-mail are used differently and are often considered tedious and time-consuming. No interprofessional formal written or electronic documentation system exists. Personal acquaintance and mutual trust are perceived as being beneficial, while a lack of mutual availability, limited time, and inadequate compensation hinder interprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: Interprofessional collaboration in home care occurs irregularly, and coordination often remains with people receiving home care or relatives. While this individual care set-up may work sufficiently well in low complex care situations, it becomes vulnerable to disruptions with increasing complexity. Close interactions, joint collaboration, and fixed means of communication might improve healthcare at home. The findings were integrated into the development of the person-centred interprofessional care concept interprof HOME. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered on the International Clinical Trails registry platform ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT05149937 on 03/11/2021.

Development of an interprofessional person-centred care concept for persons with care needs living in their own homes (interprof HOME): study protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: People receiving home care usually have complex healthcare needs requiring the involvement of informal caregivers and various health professionals. In this context, successful collaboration is an important element of person-centred care, which is often insufficiently implemented. Consequences might be found in avoidable hospitalisations. The aim of the study is to develop a care concept to improve person-centred interprofessional collaboration for people receiving home care considering the perspectives of all person groups involved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses a mixed-methods design consisting of a literature review, several qualitative inquiries, a cross-sectional quantitative study and a final structured workshop. After a literature review (work package (WP) 1), we will explore the perspectives of people receiving home care (n=20), their relatives (n=20) and representatives of statutory health insurances (n=5) in semistructured interviews (WP2). Moreover, 100 individuals of each group (people receiving home care, relatives, registered nurses, general practitioners and therapists) involved in home care will answer a survey on collaboration that will be analysed descriptively (WP3). Additionally, monoprofessional focus groups (n=9) of registered nurses, general practitioners and therapists, respectively, will discuss current practices. Data will be analysed by qualitative content analysis. Best practice cases (n=8) will be analysed by a case-based qualitative content analysis based on data of observations of home visits and interviews (WP4). The findings of WP2 will be discussed in mixed focus groups (n=4) with 10 participants each (WP5). Considering the results of joint displays of WP3, WP4 and WP5, the interprofessional care concept and its implementation will be elaborated in an expert workshop (WP6). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from all ethics committees of the project partners. Study results will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations, student education and advanced training of health professionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05149937.

Cluster randomised trial of a complex interprofessional intervention (interprof ACT) to reduce hospital admission of nursing home residents.

BACKGROUND: Some hospital admissions of nursing home residents (NHRs) might be attributed to inadequate interprofessional collaboration. To improve general practitioner-nurse collaboration in nursing homes (NHs), we developed an intervention package (interprof ACT) in a previous study. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of interprof ACT on the proportion of hospitalisation and other clinical parameters within 12 months from randomisation among NHRs. METHODS: Multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial in 34 German NHs. NHRs of the control group received usual care, whereas NHRs in the intervention group received interprof ACT. Eligible NHs had at least 40 long-term care residents. NHs were randomised 1:1 pairwise. Blinded assessors collected primary outcome data. RESULTS: Seventeen NHs (320 NHRs) were assigned to interprof ACT and 17 NHs (323 NHRs) to usual care. In the intervention group, 136 (42.5%) NHRs were hospitalised at least once within 12 months from randomisation and 151 (46.7%) in the control group (odds ratio (OR): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): [0.55; 1.22], P = 0.33). No differences were found for the average number of hospitalisations: 0.8 hospitalisations per NHR (rate ratio (RR) 0.90, 95% CI: [0.66, 1.25], P = 0.54). Average length of stay was 5.7 days for NHRs in the intervention group and 6.5 days in the control group (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: [0.45, 1.11], P = 0.13). Falls were the most common adverse event, but none was related to the study intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of interprof ACT did not show a statistically significant and clinically relevant effect on hospital admission of NHRs.