Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Patient care is a complex activity which demands that health and social care professionals work together in an effective manner. The evidence suggests, however, that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve collaboration and patient care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to education interventions in which the same health and social care professionals learn separately from one another; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 1999 to 2006. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1999 to 2006), reference lists of the six included studies and leading IPE books, IPE conference proceedings, and websites of IPE organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client and/or healthcare process outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies, and extracted data from, and assessed study quality of, included studies. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible given the small number of included studies and the heterogeneity in methodological designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: We included six studies (four RCTs and two CBA studies). Four of these studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; management of care delivered to domestic violence victims; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, two of the six studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and two studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated review found six studies that met the inclusion criteria, in contrast to our first review that found no eligible studies. Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies, the heterogeneity of interventions, and the methodological limitations, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. More rigorous IPE studies (i.e. those employing RCTs, CBA or ITS designs with rigorous randomisation procedures, better allocation concealment, larger sample sizes, and more appropriate control groups) are needed to provide better evidence of the impact of IPE on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. These studies should also include data collection strategies that provide insight into how IPE affects changes in health care processes and patient outcomes.

LRRTM1 on chromosome 2p12 is a maternally suppressed gene that is associated paternally with handedness and schizophrenia.

Left-right asymmetrical brain function underlies much of human cognition, behavior and emotion. Abnormalities of cerebral asymmetry are associated with schizophrenia and other neuropsychiatric disorders. The molecular, developmental and evolutionary origins of human brain asymmetry are unknown. We found significant association of a haplotype upstream of the gene LRRTM1 (Leucine-rich repeat transmembrane neuronal 1) with a quantitative measure of human handedness in a set of dyslexic siblings, when the haplotype was inherited paternally (P=0.00002). While we were unable to find this effect in an epidemiological set of twin-based sibships, we did find that the same haplotype is overtransmitted paternally to individuals with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder in a study of 1002 affected families (P=0.0014). We then found direct confirmatory evidence that LRRTM1 is an imprinted gene in humans that shows a variable pattern of maternal downregulation. We also showed that LRRTM1 is expressed during the development of specific forebrain structures, and thus could influence neuronal differentiation and connectivity. This is the first potential genetic influence on human handedness to be identified, and the first putative genetic effect on variability in human brain asymmetry. LRRTM1 is a candidate gene for involvement in several common neurodevelopmental disorders, and may have played a role in human cognitive and behavioral evolution.

A best evidence systematic review of interprofessional education: BEME Guide no. 9.

BACKGROUND AND REVIEW CONTEXT: Evidence to support the proposition that learning together will help practitioners and agencies work better together remains limited and thinly spread. This review identified, collated, analysed and synthesised the best available contemporary evidence from 21 of the strongest evaluations of IPE to inform the above proposition. In this way we sought to help shape future interprofessional education and maximize the potential for interprofessional learning to contribute to collaborative practice and better care. OBJECTIVES OF THE REVIEW: To identify and review the strongest evaluations of IPE. To classify the outcomes of IPE and note the influence of context on particular outcomes. To develop a narrative about the mechanisms that underpin and inform positive and negative outcomes of IPE. SEARCH STRATEGY: Bibliographic database searches as follows: Medline 1966-2003, CINAHL 1982-2001, BEI 1964-2001, ASSIA 1990-2003 which produced 10,495 abstracts. Subsequently, 884 full papers were obtained and scrutinized. In addition, hand searching (2003-5 issues) of 21 journals known to have published two or more higher quality studies from a previous review. TOPIC DEFINITION AND INCLUSION CRITERIA: Peer-reviewed papers and reports included in the review had to be formal educational initiatives attended by at least two of the many professional groups from health and social care, with the objective of improving care; and learning with, from and about each other. DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND SYNTHESIS: Standard systematic review procedures were applied for sifting abstracts, scrutinizing full papers and abstracting data. Two members of the team checked each abstract to decide whether the full paper should be read. A third member was consulted over any discrepancies. Similarly, each full paper was read by at least two members of the team and agreement sought before passing it to one member of the team (SR) for data abstraction. Other members of the team checked 10% of the abstraction records. Coding into a Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) data base led to collection of different outcome measures used in the primary studies via the common metric of an adapted Kirkpatrick's four-level model of educational outcomes. Additionally, a narrative synthesis was built after analysis of primary data with the 3-P model (presage-process-product) of education development and delivery. HEADLINE RESULTS: Government calls for enhanced collaboration amongst practitioners frequently leads to IPE that is then developed and delivered by educators, practitioners or service managers. Staff development is a key influence on the effectiveness of IPE for learners who all have unique values about themselves and others. Authenticity and customization of IPE are important mechanisms for positive outcomes of IPE. Interprofessional education is generally well received, enabling knowledge and skills necessary for collaborative working to be learnt; it is less able to positively influence attitudes and perceptions towards others in the service delivery team. In the context of quality improvement initiatives interprofessional education is frequently used as a mechanism to enhance the development of practice and improvement of services.

Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: As patient care becomes more complex, effective collaboration between health and social care professionals is required. However, evidence suggests that these professionals do not collaborate well together. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way forward in this area. OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of IPE interventions compared to education in which the same professions were learning separately from one another. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE (1968 to 1998) and Cinahl (1982 to 1998). We also hand searched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (1992 to 1998), the Centre for the Advancement of Interprofessional Education Bulletin (1987 to 1998), conference proceedings, the 'grey literature' held by relevant organisations, and reference lists of articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies of IPE interventions designed to improve collaborative practice between health/social care practitioners and/or the health/well being of patients/clients. The participants included chiropodists/podiatrists, complementary therapists, dentists, dietitians, doctors/physicians, hygienists, psychologists, psychotherapists, midwives, nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, radiographers, speech therapists and/or social workers. The outcomes included objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client outcomes and reliable (objective or validated subjective) health care process measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. MAIN RESULTS: The total yield from the search strategy was 1042, of which 89 were retained for further consideration. However none of these studies met the inclusion criteria. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Despite finding a large body of literature on the evaluation of IPE, these studies lacked the methodological rigour needed to begin to convincingly understand the impact of IPE on professional practice and/or health care outcomes.

Cognitive function in hypertension: a community based study.

Cognitive function was investigated in a random sample of subjects on the general practitioners' registry of hypertensive patients in an inner city area and matched with normotensive controls. The response rate was 66% giving 90 matched pairs, average age 63 yrs, with 47% men. There was no difference in educational background or measures of reading ability between the two groups. Cognitive function tests showed a consistent trend of poorer performance in hypertensives, with significant differences in Verbal Learning (immediate recall and retention). Age was inversely related to cognitive function, but no additional deterioration with increasing age was shown in hypertensives.