Health care in most contexts depends on teams of professionals with diverse skills working together synergistically to achieve optimal outcomes for patients and their families. The way is which interprofessional practice occurs in rural healthcare varies from that which occurs in metropolitan areas. This variation reflects the social, economic and geographic characteristics of rural communities. Further, rural workforce challenges and lack of access to resources and services are compounded by the difficulties associated with the intersection of speciality driven metropolitan models and the generalist models of care that are a feature of rural health care. This study’s aim was to examine how IPP happens in rural contexts, and to identify barriers, enablers and existing and potential models of IPP. Interviews were conducted with health professionals (nurses, doctors and allied health) in a range of rural healthcare contexts (Hospitals, GP practices, Multi-Purpose Services and Community centres) in NSW, Australia. Interview data were supplemented with document review and review of communication systems. Findings suggest that the nature of IPP in rural contexts is diverse and determined by a number of critical factors including rurality, connection to community, availability of staff, funding programs and specific interests and skills of staff. Rural IPP is characterised by a small numbers of professionals across few professions, focus on generalist practice and informal communication systems. IPP is growing in response to changes in government funding models and policy and through the establishment or strengthening of pivotal co-ordinating roles, with a clear mandate to involve other professionals and patients in decision making.
Abstract AIM: To describe the research protocol that will be used to investigate factors contributing to effective interprofessional practice in a rural context in Australia. BACKGROUND: Interprofessional practice is a key strategy for overcoming rural health challenges; however, our knowledge of interprofessional initiatives and consequences in rural areas is limited. DESIGN: A modified realistic evaluation approach will be used to explore the structures, systems, and social processes contributing to effective interprofessional outcomes. This 'context-mechanism-outcome' approach provides a useful framework for identifying why and how interprofessional practice works in rural contexts. METHOD: Initial propositions regarding the factors that explain effective collaborative practice will be generated through interviews with lead clinicians, policy-makers, and clinician managers. Clinician interviews, document analysis, and multi-participant focus groups will be used as evidence to support, refine, or redevelop the initial propositions. This will allow the development of a model of rural interprofessional practice that will explain how and why collaborative approaches work in rural environments. This study is funded by an Institute of Rural Clinical Services and Teaching grant (January 2010). DISCUSSION: Rural healthcare challenges are well documented; however, studies investigating the nature of interprofessional practice in rural contexts are not common. Rural contexts also present research design, particularly data collection, challenges. This proposed research is one of the first to identify the factors that facilitate or constrain effective interprofessional work in rural settings. This is particularly important, given the continuing workforce shortages and maldistribution and poorer health outcomes in rural communities globally.