These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Perceptions of Interprofessional and Collaborative Practice in Collegiate Athletic Trainers.
    Author: Hankemeier D, Manspeaker SA.
    Journal: J Athl Train; 2018 Jul; 53(7):703-708. PubMed ID: 30102070.
    Abstract:
    CONTEXT:   The ability to engage in interprofessional and collaborative practice (IPCP) has been identified as one of the Institute of Medicine's core competencies required of all health care professionals. OBJECTIVE:   To determine the perceptions of athletic trainers (ATs) in the collegiate setting regarding IPCP and current practice patterns. DESIGN:   Cross-sectional study. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS:   Of 6313 ATs in the collegiate setting, 739 (340 men, 397 women, 2 preferred not to answer; clinical experience = 10.97 ± 9.62 years) responded (11.7%). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S):   The Online Clinician Perspectives of Interprofessional Collaborative Practice survey section 1 assessed ATs' perceptions of working with other professionals (construct 1), ATs engaged in collaborative practice (construct 2), influences of collaborative practice (construct 3), and influences on roles, responsibilities, and autonomy in collaborative practice (construct 4). Section 2 assessed current practice patterns of ATs providing patient care and included the effect of communication on collaborative practice (construct 5) and patient involvement in collaborative practice (construct 6). Between-groups differences were assessed using a Kruskal-Wallis H test and Mann-Whitney U tests ( P < .05). RESULTS:   Athletic trainers in the collegiate setting agreed with IPCP constructs 1 through 4 (construct 1 = 3.56 ± 0.30, construct 2 = 3.36 ± 0.467, construct 3 = 3.48 ± 0.39, construct 4 = 3.20 ± 0.35) and indicated that the concepts of constructs 5 and 6 (1.99 ± 0.46, 1.80 ± 0.50, respectively) were sometimes true in their setting. Athletic trainers functioning in a medical model reported lower scores for construct 5 (1.88 ± 0.44) than did those in an athletic model (2.03 ± 0.45, U = 19 522.0, P = .001). A total of 42.09% of the ATs' patient care was performed in collaborative practice. CONCLUSIONS:   Athletic trainers in the collegiate setting agreed that IPCP concepts were beneficial to patient care but were not consistently practicing in this manner. Consideration of a medical model structure, wherein more regular interaction with other health care professionals occurs, may be beneficial to increase the frequency of IPCP.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]