Social workers are vital in delivering psychosocial services in palliative care, yet their specific roles in palliative oncology remain undefined. This study aimed to delineate the current practice role of oncology social workers involvement in palliative care in the United States.

This study utilized a cross-sectional design and involved secondary analysis of data from a nationwide survey focused on workforce conditions for oncology social workers. The participants were social workers who were directly involved in providing care to cancer patients and delivering palliative care services. They completed an online survey in which they indicated the relevance of 91 tasks related to their practice. The survey also collected individual demographic and work-related characteristics. Exploratory factor analysis was used to achieve the study objective.

Responses from a secondary data set of 243 oncology social workers involved in palliative care results in a 6-factor solution comprising 34 tasks. These factors were identified as: Therapeutic Interventions for Individuals, Couples, and Families; Facilitate Patient Care Decision-making; Care Coordination; Assessment and Emotional Support; Organization and Community Service; and Equity and Justice. All 6 factors demonstrated good internal reliability, as indicated by Cronbach’s alpha scores above 0.70.

The findings can be used to develop job descriptions and education for social workers employed in palliative cancer care. The clear role descriptions also make social work visible to other professionals in palliative oncology. By clarifying the roles of oncology social workers, this study contributes to the improvement of palliative care delivery and enhances interprofessional collaboration within cancer care teams.

Inadequate deliberation processes about ethical problems occurring in palliative care settings may negatively impact both patients and healthcare professionals. Better knowledge of the palliative care professionals’ practices regarding such processes could help identify specific education needs to improve the quality of palliative care in the context of complex ethical situations. Therefore, this descriptive study aimed to (1) examine ethical deliberation processes in interprofessional teams in five palliative care settings; (2) identify organizational factors that constrain such processes; and (3) based on this knowledge, identify priority education needs for future and current palliative care professionals.

The study involved three data collection activities: (1) direct observation of simulated interprofessional ethical deliberations in various palliative care settings; (2) individual semi-structured interviews; and (3) deliberative dialogues.

Thirty-six healthcare professionals took part in the simulated ethical deliberations and in the deliberative dialogue activities, and 13 were met in an individual interview. The study results revealed suboptimal interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation competencies, particularly regarding awareness of the ethical issue under consideration, clarification of conflicting values, reasonable decision making, and implementation planning. Participants also reported facing serious organizational constraints that challenged ethical deliberation processes.

This study confirmed the need for professional education in interprofessional collaboration and ethical deliberation so that palliative care professionals can adequately face current and future ethical challenges. It also enabled the identification of educational priorities in this regard. Future research should focus on identifying promising educational activities, assessing their effectiveness, and measuring their impact on patient and family experience and the quality of palliative care.

Rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in primary care is a growing concern and a threat to community health. The rise of AMR can be slowed down if general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) could work as a team to implement antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programs for optimal use of antimicrobial(s). However, the evidence supporting a GP pharmacist collaborative AMS implementation model (GPPAS) in primary care remains limited.

With an aim to design a GPPAS model in Australia, this paper outlines how this model will be developed.

This exploratory study undertakes a systematic review, a scoping review, nationwide surveys, and qualitative interviews to design the model. Medical Research Council (MRC) framework and Normalization Process Theory are utilized as guides. Reviews will identify the list of effective GPPAS interventions. Two AMS surveys and paired interviews of GPs and CPs across Australia will explore their convergent and divergent views about the GPPAS interventions, attitudes towards collaboration in AMS and the perceived challenges of implementing GPPAS interventions. Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS 2.0) model and factor analyses will guide the structure of GPPAS model through identifying the determinants of GPPAS uptake. The implementable GPPAS strategies will be selected based on empirical feasibility assessment by AMS stakeholders using the APEASE (Affordability, Practicability, Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, Acceptability, Side-effects and safety, Equity) criteria.

The GPPAS model might have potential implications to inform how to better involve GPs and CPs in AMS, and, to improve collaborative services to optimize antimicrobial use and reduce AMR in primary care.

The aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.

Despite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.

A qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.

A total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Formal training in team leadership is not taught in biomedical research graduate training programs or medical schools.

We piloted a Leadership Training Workshop for graduate biomedical and medical students enrolled in our Interprofessional Research Design Course.

The Kane–Baltes self-efficacy survey demonstrated improved leadership skills (median scores pretraining and post-training were 71 and 76.6; paired t-test, p=0.04).

Most students demonstrated significant improvement in self-awareness pertaining to their own innate leadership styles.