
==== Front
PLoS One
PLoS One
plos
PLOS ONE
1932-6203
Public Library of Science San Francisco, CA USA

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256
PONE-D-23-42337
Research Article
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Nurses
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Palliative Care
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Physicians
People and Places
Population Groupings
Professions
Medical Personnel
Physicians
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Survey Research
Questionnaires
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Patients
Outpatients
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Primary Care
Research and Analysis Methods
Research Design
Pilot Studies
Medicine and Health Sciences
Health Care
Health Care Providers
Allied Health Care Professionals
Interprofessional collaboration during a specialised mobile palliative care service pilot in the rural area of Lucerne
Interprofessional collaboration during a pilot project in Lucerne
https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5271-0591
Bucher Sahra Maria Anna Conceptualization Writing – original draft 1 *
Dimech Anne Marie Schumacher Validation Writing – review & editing 1
Müller Beat Writing – review & editing 1 2
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6097-2480
Beeler Patrick E. Supervision 3
1 Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Luzern, Luzern, Switzerland
2 Cantonal Hospital Luzern, Palliative Care, Luzern, Switzerland
3 Center for Primary and Community Care, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland
Schneider Martin Editor
Epicentre, FRANCE
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: sahra.bucher@hotmail.com
18 9 2024
2024
19 9 e030825615 1 2024
21 7 2024
© 2024 Bucher et al
2024
Bucher et al
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Interprofessional collaboration in outpatient palliative care is critical to ensuring good quality of care in the home care sector. We investigated facilitators and barriers (FaBs) of interprofessional collaboration among healthcare professionals who participated in a 6-month pilot of a newly implemented specialised mobile palliative care service (SMPCS) in rural Lucerne. This study used a mixed-methods approach to collect (i) qualitative data on FaBs as perceived by nurses and primary care physicians (PCPs), and (ii) quantitative data across the entire interprofessional collaboration using a validated questionnaire expanded with 10 specific questions about the pilot. Identified facilitators of interprofessional collaboration were (i) use of standardised documents, (ii) clear allocation of responsibilities, (iii) regular exchange and clear communication and (iv) consideration of care coordination. Reported barriers were (i) a deficit of knowledge and experience of palliative care among PCPs and (ii) time constraints. This study provides valuable insights into FaBs of interprofessional collaboration in palliative care. Several recommendations can be drawn for how interprofessional collaboration may be optimised. Awareness of FaBs and their consideration in the implementation phase of new services can strengthen the foundation for a successful interprofessional collaboration.

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. Data AvailabilityAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
==== Body
pmc1 Introduction

Interprofessional collaboration exists when “multiple health care workers from different professional backgrounds work together with patients, families, caregivers, and communities to provide quality care” [1]. In the outpatient setting, interprofessional collaboration can improve patient satisfaction, acceptance of care and health outcomes. As a result, interprofessional collaboration enables health professionals to work at their highest capacity and to address complex health situations in the best possible ways [1]. In Switzerland, the decentralisation of various professional groups demands effective interprofessional collaboration in the outpatient palliative care setting. Unfortunately, a lack of communication and responsibility is observed more frequently in outpatient settings in rural areas than in the well-connected urban areas. Such shortcomings in interprofessional collaboration can lead to the inadequate treatment of patients [2]. To optimize interprofessional collaboration, its specific facilitators and barriers (FaBs) must be identified [3]. During a pilot phase, several professional groups often come together for the first time, making interprofessional collaboration even more challenging [4]. So far, there is no Swiss study of interprofessional collaboration and its FaBs as part of a pilot in the palliative care outpatient setting. Due to this lack of data, this study aimed to glean further knowledge with focus on the specialised mobile palliative care service (SMPCS) project in rural Lucerne. SMPCS is a novel outpatient service and its pilot was conducted from August 1 to December 31, 2022 [5, 6]. The objective of this study was to identify FaBs of interprofessional collaboration during the SMPCS pilot in rural Lucerne in Switzerland. The following research question was addressed: what were FaBs of interprofessional collaboration during the SMPCS pilot project in a rural part of Switzerland?

2 Methods

2.1 Study design

This study uses a mixed methods approach to (i) develop qualitative insight into the FaBs of interprofessional collaboration from the point of view of home care nurses and primary care physicians (PCPs); and (ii) to collect quantitative data from all professional groups who had direct or indirect patient contact as part of the SMPCS pilot. This study defines professional groups as a collection of diverse professionals who have direct or indirect interactions with patients receiving palliative care. The primary group within the specialised palliative care service consisted of qualified nurses with further training in specialised palliative care and primary care physicians. The nursing professionals were employed within existing home care organizations. The pilot project was structured in a highly dynamic manner whereas additional professional groups were incorporated based on the patients’ specific needs. This approach facilitated individualized, specialised, and patient-centered care for each palliative care patient. There were no predefined individuals assigned to the pilot project from the outset; rather, they were integrated into the pilot project team as needed throughout its course. The use of mixed methods provided the opportunity to gain a deeper understanding of the interprofessional collaboration’s FaBs through interviews and to include the opinions of further involved professional groups via a questionnaire. Our study adhered to the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ) guideline and checklist for reporting of survey studies (CROSS) [7, 8].

2.2 Participants

Nurses of the home care organisation providing SMPCS were approached via email and telephone with an invitation to participate in this study. In this first contact, potential participants were informed about the study and its objective. Participation was voluntary throughout the study.

2.2.1 Qualitative part

Interview participants were recruited in person, by telephone and by email. Only qualified nurses and PCPs, aged 18 and above, who had direct or indirect contact with patients at least once in the context of the SMPCS pilot project were approached and included for the interviews. Interviews were conducted on a one-off basis. Three female nurses (aged 42, 46 and 41) were interviewed, all of whom had further training in palliative care and two of whom had a specialised responsibility. One female PCP (aged 44) and two male PCPs (aged 32 and 37) without further training in palliative care were interviewed. All nurses who were approached agreed to be interviewed. Six PCPs were contacted, only three agreed to be interviewed. Contact with the involved PCPs was established through the nurses. All interviewees were unknown to the interviewer.

2.2.2 Quantitative part

Professionals involved in the SMPCS pilot were invited by email to participate in the online interprofessional collaboration questionnaire. Only individuals aged 18 and older who had direct or indirect contact with patients were included. A total of 39 professionals from seven different professional groups were invited to participate. All professionals were categorized into one of the following seven professional groups: primary care physicians, nurses, psychologists, psychotherapists, medical practice assistants or specialised medical assistants, occupational therapists, nutritionists, social workers, pastoral care providers, and volunteers. Through the nurses, contact was established with other professional groups who had direct contact with SMPCS-involved patients or were heavily involved in their cases.

2.3 Data collection

2.3.1 Qualitative data collection

Between August 1 and December 31, 2022, six semi-structured interviews were conducted in German, the regional language, by a single interviewer, without further training in conducting interviews. The interviews lasted between 18 and 22 minutes with PCPs and 59 to 72 minutes with nurses. Four interviews were conducted in person at the respondents’ workplaces and two via telephone. Before conducting the interviews, explanations were provided about the aim of the study, the reasons for recording the interviews and data confidentiality. Participants provided informed consent based on the Swiss federal law on data protection and were informed that they would remain anonymous. The anonymization procedure was adopted from Kuckartz & Rädiker (2022) and applied according to their guidelines [9]. As no patient data were involved, an ethics committee application was not required under the Swiss federal act on research involving human beings [9, 10]. All recorded interviews were deleted after transcription. The semi-structured interviews were based on interview guides for nurses and PCPs, which was forwarded to the second author for proofreading and was pilot tested during two mock interviews to strengthen its validity. The interview guides addressed communication, exchange, role distribution, organisational processes and demographic data.

2.3.2. Quantitative data collection

The German-language online questionnaire about interprofessional collaboration was sent at the end of the pilot between December 20, 2022 and January 10, 2023. In each case, a reminder letter was sent two weeks after the first request. Before sending out the questionnaire, it was reviewed and edited by five different researchers to strengthen its validity. The online questionnaire was conducted anonymously via Google Forms, with access to the data always protected. The emails sent and the response rate was compared to prevent multiple participation. It contained 13 standardised questions of a validated questionnaire about interprofessional collaboration [11], which was expanded with ten specific questions about the pilot: one question addressed the importance of interprofessional collaboration, three questions addressed advance directives, two questions addressed healthcare proxy, one question addressed the accessibility of PCPs and three questions addressed SMPCS standardised documents. Non-response was not addressed, item weighting was not conducted and a sample size calculation was not performed, due to the goal of describing the small group of involved professionals.

2.4. Data analysis

2.4.1 Qualitative data analysis

Interviews were transcribed using the program f4transkript V8.1.1 (811) (audiotranskription, Marburg, Germany). The interviewer transcribed all six interviews according to predefined transcription rules [12, 13]. After transcription, content analysis was performed using the program f4analysis 3.4.2 (audiotranskription, Marburg, Germany). A deductive content analysis was primarily conducted, using a predefined coding manual. We aimed to construct our work upon pre-existing, evidence-based knowledge, utilizing Reeves’ theoretical framework, which delved into interprofessional collaboration and delineated four primary categories within its construct, namely: relational, procedural, organizational, and contextual [14]. This study primarily adopted a deductive approach as its main strategy for three reasons. (I) A deductive approach was chosen because the utilization of the theoretical framework provides a solid foundation for data analysis derived from relevant theories and existing knowledge. (II) A deductive approach can offer the opportunity to focus the analysis on specific aspects that are relevant to the research question. (III) This approach facilitates the systematic categorization of the interview content according to the predetermined framework and its concepts, enhancing the reliability and validity of the analysis. Codes have been added to the manual and noted as such. All six interviews included the application of these four categories of Reeves’ theoretical framework. In terms of content, the interviews with nursing staff were fully consistent with the aforementioned categories. In contrast, the interviews with primary care providers only matched two of the four defined categories, namely: relational and procedural. To assure inter-coder reliability, the interviewer (first author) and the second author both conducted the content analysis based on the predefined coding handbook. Coding discrepancies between the two researchers were discussed, recorded and resolved. Inter-coder-reliability was 81.2% and was calculated using the program MAXQDA Plus 2022 22.4.1 (MAXQDA, Berlin, Deutschland). The transcripts and content analysis were not presented to the participants for feedback.

2.4.2 Quantitative data analysis

Descriptive data analysis was performed using STATA 17.0 (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA). Categorical variables are presented as counts, continuous variables with non-normal distributions as medians with first and third quartiles. Graphs were generated using Microsoft Excel 16.66.1 (Microsoft, 2022).

3 Results

3.1 Qualitative part

The qualitative section highlights seven key findings from the analysis, relying on two primary factors from Reeves’ theory: processual and relational. Processual factors, detailed in chapters 3.1.1 to 3.1.4, encompass elements like time, routines, technologies, and situational complexity, influencing interprofessional collaboration. Similarly, relational factors, discussed in chapters 3.1.5 to 3.1.7, include socialization, team dynamics, roles, and professional authority, contributing to interprofessional collaboration [14].

3.1.1 Evaluation of interprofessional collaboration and professionals involved

According to the PCPs, interprofessional collaboration mainly involved work with nurses, with one PCP stating that he also had contact with physiotherapists. Nurses stated that they had contact with various professional groups, including pastoral carers, physiotherapists, psychologists and other service providers, such as health insurance, material suppliers or the pharmacy. All interviewees reported that they knew the term interprofessional collaboration. Interprofessional collaboration was important for PCPs due to the shortage of PCPs, the specialization of various professions in recent decades and the changed role of PCPs. For instance, one PCP explained, “I as a doctor couldn’t do it all, it’s not like 60 years ago”. From the nurses’ perspective, interprofessional collaboration is necessary due to the high complexity of the patients, which requires knowledge from different professional groups. One nurse stated that interprofessional collaboration is more demanding in the outpatient setting due to the decentralisation of various professional groups that do not work in the same institution.

3.1.2 Standardised documents in specialised palliative care

All participants interviewed were satisfied with the SMPCS-specific standardised documents and with the fact that these were digitally available. Two nurses stated that the lack of a shared electronic tool hinders interprofessional collaboration. Despite the initial extra work, the PCPs and nurses described the documents as making their work more efficient. Both said the documents would pay off in the long term by increasing nurses’ independence and reducing exchanges between PCPs and nurses. One PCP stated that when filling in the standardised forms “it’s all at once, maybe [not all medications are necessary], but then they have everything right from the start. In the end, that’s probably more efficient, yes”.

Further standardised forms, such as the advance directive, are considered an essential element of palliative care by two PCPs and three nurses, however, one PCP does not attach much importance to this document. PCPs do not usually ask about an advance directive. One PCP stated that the nursing staff informs the PCPs if a patient does not have an advance directive, and nursing staff may also discuss the advance directive with a patient and forward it to the PCP for filing. One nurse stated that she was not sufficiently trained to adequately educate and advise a patient in completing their advance directive. According to the nursing staff, the advance directive is often not available, but resuscitation status is always clearly indicated.

3.1.3 Time factor in interdisciplinary teams

Due to the high workload and limited time available, correspondence via email and telephone is demanding for the PCPs. PCPs see correspondence as additional work they would like to minimize. For urgent concerns, all PCPs agree to take their time and deal with it as quickly as possible, which is confirmed by nurses. According to all nurses, the preparation of care plans for patients in the SMPCS takes more time than for regular patients because of the high complexity of these patients. Complex patient situations can suddenly change and require quick action. When professional groups are difficult to reach or it is unclear who to approach, this may hinder the involvement of other professional groups. One nurse stated that for such involvement, “you have to make phone calls […] and that takes so much time […], [which] is then lost on patient care”.

3.1.4 Care coordination in specialised palliative care

Two PCPs and all the nurses felt that improved care coordination between involved professional groups would facilitate their work and interprofessional collaboration. According to all interviewees, care coordination would make sense for complex cases or cases involving several professional groups, but if mainly nurses and PCPs were involved, such a role would not be necessary. One PCP mentioned that he saw his professional group as the most suitable for care coordination, since requests from various professional groups often require a prescription by the PCP anyway. On the other hand, the PCP stated that “you also have to see that the PCP doesn’t always have time for all professional groups to make long phone calls or answer emails”. Another PCP and two nurses address the role to nursing, whereas one nurse stated that the relationship between the professional group and the patient goes far beyond care coordination. Further, two nurses with extended responsibilities have unofficially taken on a large part of the care coordination, but none of them had any further training, nor were they compensated for doing so or specifically hired for this role.

3.1.5 Team roles in interdisciplinary teams

All participants interviewed considered it essential to clarify professional roles and their responsibilities to avoid misunderstandings or over-/underestimation of competencies. According to the nurses, a clear understanding of roles requires that the professional groups exchange information, know each other and know professional groups’ contributions to patient care. At the same time, a clear distribution of roles supports effective and efficient interprofessional collaboration. One nurse stated “that you know what everyone’s role is in this team, I think that’s the most important thing”.

3.1.6 Knowledge and experience in specialised palliative care

All three nurses stated that a basic understanding of palliative care must be present for successful interprofessional collaboration in the context of the pilot. Without knowledge of palliative care, it is challenging to work with other professional groups. The nurses cited the lack of PCPs’ knowledge about important palliative care medications, dosages or combinations of medications. In particular, recognising and accepting palliative care, without initiating measures beyond addressing quality of life, is an important issue from the nurses’ perspective. One nurse stated that “someone who already has some experience as a [PCP], I notice […] that maybe they don’t do anything more in terms of therapy, but only strive for the best possible symptom relief and quality of life”.

3.1.7 Exchange and communication in interdisciplinary teams

All interviewees prefer face-to-face exchanges, although meeting face-to-face is often not possible due to high workload, so email and telephone are considered sufficient means of communication. Digital exchange platforms such as Zoom or Teams are conceivable among nurses, but not preferred. No interprofessional meetings were held during the pilot, however regular meetings were held between the nurses, which, according to them, was very helpful for their work in palliative care. Overall, all interviewees described exchange and communication as satisfactory and an essential part of interprofessional collaboration. One PCP stated that “I really think good communication is the be-all and end-all between different professionals”. According to the interviewees, integrating suggestions from other professional groups is beneficial for interprofessional collaboration.

3.2. Quantitative part

In total, 17 (43.6%) out of 39 respondents completed the questionnaire providing further information about their experience with interprofessional collaboration during the pilot. All interviewed nurses participated in the questionnaire, and two out of three PCPs interviewed. The demographic data of the questionnaire respondents are displayed in Table 1.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.t001 Table 1 Demographic data of quantitative part.

Demographic data of quantitative part	n	
Professional groups		
Nurse	7	
PCP	4	
Medical practice assistant or specialised medical assistant	3	
Psychotherapist	1	
Volunteer	1	
Specialised physician in palliative care	1	
Gender		
Female	14	
Male	3	
Age (years)		
Q1	41	
Median	44	
Q3	47	
Employment		
Employed	16	
Self-employed/own company	1	
Workload (%)		
Q1	40	
Median	60	
Q3	90	
Hours worked per week (hours)		
Q1	20	
Median	26	
Q3	42	
Professional work experience (years)		
Q1	10	
Median	16	
Q3	20	
Further education in PC		
Nurses	7	
Specialised physician in palliative care	1	
Abbreviations: primary care physicians (PCP), quartile 1 (Q1), quartile 3 (Q3).

3.2.1 Evaluation of interprofessional collaboration and professionals involved

All questionnaire participants (n = 17) indicated that they viewed interprofessional collaboration as important and meaningful. Fig 1 shows how often the professional groups reported having been in contact with other professional groups during the pilot.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.g001 Fig 1 Frequency of interprofessional collaboration between August 1 and December 31, 2022.

Participants stated to have the most contact on a daily base with PCPs (n = 6), medical practice assistants or specialised medical assistants (n = 7) and nurses (n = 7). Fig 2 shows how many professionals agreed with the different statements about other professional groups with whom they work at least once a month.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.g002 Fig 2 Evaluation of interprofessional collaboration.

Professionals from the professional group nurses (n = 3) and PCPs (n = 1) agreed to the statement “disagreements with the other professional group often go unresolved”. Professional groups of medical practice assistants or specialised medical assistants (n = 3), nurses (n = 3), PCPs (n = 2) as well as the volunteer (n = 1), specialised physician (n = 1) and psychotherapist (n = 1) disagreed on the statement. To two professionals from the professional groups nurse and PCP did the statement not apply.

3.2.2 Standardised documents in specialised palliative care

The questionnaire included three statements about each of the three standardised documents. Responses to these statements are displayed in Fig 3.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.g003 Fig 3 SMPCS-specific standardised documents.

The three standardised documents were considered necessary by most professional groups. The three statements of necessity did not apply to two professionals from the medical practice assistant or specialised medical assistant group and specialised physician group. Most professionals agreed with the statements about the completeness of all three standardised documents, except for two professionals from the professional group medical practice assistant or specialised medical assistant. To six professionals from the professional groups nurse (n = 2), specialised physician (n = 1), PCP (n = 1) and medical practice assistant or specialised medical assistant (n = 2), the three statements of completeness did not apply. Fig 4 shows the results of the statements about the advance directive and the healthcare proxy.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.g004 Fig 4 Further standardised documents.

The advanced directive was seen by all professional groups as necessary, except for two professionals of the professional groups nurse (n = 1) and PCP (n = 1), who disagreed with the first statement.

3.2.3 Time factor in interdisciplinary teams

The questionnaire included one question about the accessibility of the PCPs. To the statement “the responsible PCP can be reached by telephone in case of ambiguities and responds promptly”, professional groups either strongly agreed (n = 5), agreed (n = 9), strongly disagreed (n = 1), or found the statement not applicable (n = 2).

3.2.4 Team roles in interdisciplinary teams

Fig 5 shows how professionals agree with the other listed professional groups on their responsibilities. Responsibilities were assessed if cooperation between the professional groups took place at least once a month.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.g005 Fig 5 Agreement on responsibilities.

4 Discussion

This study found relational and processual factors to be relevant FaBs [14]. Facilitators were (i) the use of standardised documents, (ii) a clear allocation of responsibilities to the professional groups involved, (iii) the consideration of care coordination, and (iv) clear communication and exchange between professional groups. Barriers were (i) time constraints and (ii) differences in knowledge and experience among professional groups.

4.1 Evaluation of interprofessional collaboration and professionals involved

All interviewees and most questionnaire respondents were satisfied with the interprofessional collaboration. The reason for respondents indicating that statements were “not relevant” may be that they had not encountered the situations in question and therefore did not have a reference point. Regarding Fig 2, the frequent collaboration between PCPs, nurses and medical practice assistant or specialised medical assistant showed higher interprofessional collaboration involvement among these groups than among other professional groups. This is unsurprising given that most palliative home care requires the involvement of PCPs, nurses, and medical practice assistants or specialised medical assistants [15, 16]. The reasons for the low involvement of occupational therapists, pastors, social workers, nutritionists, and psychologists may be explained by the new pilot set-up, time constraints, high administrative complexity, or simply the perceived lack of need for other professional groups to be involved. Such networking with other professional groups, known as integrated care, is nowadays increasingly promoted to meet the needs of demographic and epidemiological changes [17]. Through the further development of the structures, processes and services of the outpatient and inpatient healthcare systems, better coordinated service can be provided to align care more closely with patients’ wishes and use resources more efficiently [17].

4.2 Facilitators of interprofessional collaboration

During the pilot project, four key facilitators of interprofessional collaboration emerged. Professionals found standardized documents beneficial. Additionally, clear role distribution within the team and regular communication were highlighted. A care coordinator was also suggested to assist in managing complex and heavy workloads.

4.2.1 Standardised documents in specialised palliative care

The three standardised documents used were developed by several professional groups and were made publicly available by the umbrella organisation “Palliativ Luzern”. These documents proved crucial in providing common ground for nurses and PCPs. The interview outcomes and the questionnaire results showed that most of the professional groups involved considered these documents necessary. Nevertheless, the three statements on completeness did not apply to six respondents in the questionnaire. The reasons for individuals stating that they were not familiar with the documents may be associated with their professional groups and competencies. Other studies confirm reduced information loss and higher collaboration within and between professional groups as the advantages of standardised documents [18, 19]. The literature also shows that a shared e-tool for exchanging documents can be beneficial for interprofessional collaboration and that the general electronic transfer of documents and information is recommended [2, 20]. PCPs further pointed out the preparatory work that is required when using standardised documents, which is known in literature as advance care planning [21, 22]. In advance care planning, documents are prepared in advance to allow users to act independently and quickly in emergencies. Advance care planning helps prevent hospitalizations, enables nurses to work more independently, and reduces unnecessary contact with professional groups [21, 22].

The results from the questionnaire indicated that the advance directive and the healthcare proxy were considered necessary documents for palliative care. Two respondents who did not share this opinion were from the PCP and nursing professional groups. Reasons for this discrepancy among PCPs and nurses were not known. The lesser importance ascribed to these documents by the nurse and PCP–professional groups who are most involved with patients–shows possible barriers to the use of both documents. In the everyday interaction between nurses and PCPs, the responsibility for completing such documents was unclear, and both professional groups were insufficiently trained for this task. Lack of knowledge and time may be additional reasons for neglecting tasks such as completing and discussing the advance directive with patients [19].

4.2.2 Team roles in interdisciplinary teams

As already confirmed by several Swiss studies [16, 19, 23], well-defined roles and responsibilities are a key element of effective interprofessional collaboration. Additionally, the clear distribution of responsibilities can help to decrease the workload by allowing all professional groups to fully contribute their knowledge and experience [16, 19]. Respondents agreed more on their responsibilities with nurses rather than with PCPs. These results may be attributable to the closer involvement of professional groups with nurses than PCPs.

4.2.3 Exchange and communication in interdisciplinary teams

During this pilot, interdisciplinary meetings among nurses were frequently held, whereas information about meetings among PCPs regarding palliative care was not available and interprofessional team meetings were not held. Regular and structured interprofessional meetings are described in the literature as a component of successful interprofessional collaboration and a countermeasure to misunderstandings regarding responsibilities and missing role allocations [19].

For PCPs, the exchange with other professional groups was challenging because of PCPs’ sizeable workload and the associated need to keep exchanges as short as possible. Nurses indicated the need for respectful and trusting communication to maintain good working relationships and achieve desired results from other professional groups. Studies show that communication is also important to maintain quality of care because good communication reduces information loss and improves work satisfaction [3, 19]. Effective communication is critical for providing information on roles and responsibilities [3, 16].

4.2.4 Care coordination in specialised palliative care

A care coordination (or case) manager role has not yet been established in Switzerland in the outpatient setting [3, 16], although care coordinators can assume responsibility for specific tasks–especially those associated with interprofessional collaboration. As described in our study, nurses frequently assume responsibility for care coordination tasks although they are not trained, employed or remunerated for these tasks [16, 24]. The resulting work overload and limited competence can lead to work-related frustration, which can affect interprofessional collaboration. This can be prevented with appropriate training and resources [24]. Examples outside Switzerland show that such care coordination including a member of staff with this specific task has been used for several years as a possible solution to the shortage of PCPs [25]. Nevertheless, most care coordinators are available only in acute settings [26, 27]. Care institutions with experience in employing care coordinators describe coordinators as providing support for everyday work for complex patient situations and report reduced hospitalizations in the last 30 days of life compared with interprofessional collaboration care without care coordinators [28, 29].

4.3 Barriers of interprofessional collaboration

The main obstacles cited for interprofessional collaboration during the pilot project were the prevalent time constraints in healthcare and the discrepancies in expertise and experience in specialised palliative care, particularly among PCPs.

4.3.1 Time constraints in interdisciplinary teams

Given already tight time constraints, PCPs stated the need to keep additional work to a minimum. In urgent patient cases, priority and time were always allocated to process a case. Lack of time appears to have an impact on the involvement of other professional groups in nursing work. The barriers to involving other professional groups, whose accessibility is more complex, force nurses to prioritise when they experience time constraints and relevant professional groups may not be involved if barriers are too high. As confirmed in the literature, barriers (such as time constraints) and additional work (such as obtaining prescriptions) make involving additional professional groups challenging [19, 23].

4.3.2 Discrepancies in knowledge and experience in specialised palliative care

In contrast to nurses, primary care physicians (PCPs) indicated a lack of additional training in palliative care. As supported by another study, only 14% of PCPs had received formal training in palliative care, despite 80%–82% of them being involved in the care of patients at the end of life, despite knowing that specialised palliative care has been shown to enhance the quality of life [30, 31]. Raising awareness of palliative care in medical training influences PCPs’ later knowledge and practice of palliative care [30]. Furthermore, interprofessional education in healthcare is an indispensable element of study programmes and impacts future interprofessional collaboration in the work setting [32]. Therefore, further training opportunities have been developed at the University of Lucerne, where a newly created certificate of advanced studies (CAS) in palliative care has been available since 2021 [33–35]. Attendance to such training opportunities remains challenging for PCPs because of competing educational opportunities and the time limits imposed on PCPs for obtaining further education [18, 23].

4.4 Strengths and limitations

This study provides a unique and in-depth picture of the FaBs of an SMPCS in rural Lucerne. To the best of our knowledge, no other studies present the FaBs of an SMPCS pilot in Switzerland. This valuable information can be beneficial to future similar projects in rural areas, especially to foster improved interprofessional collaboration.

The limitations of this study should be considered in interpreting the results. We investigated interprofessional collaboration during one pilot, the results are based on six interviews and a small sample of questionnaire responses. Only three of the six PCPs contacted agreed to participate in interviews. The reasons for low interviewee recruitment are unknown but might be associated with a lack of interest, time, or affinity with palliative care. Furthermore, interviewees’ contact with only a few palliative care patients may have influenced the interviews. The person conducting the interview had basic knowledge in interviewing, which may have influenced the results. Finally, only 17 people participated in the questionnaire; some professional groups were not suitably represented, e.g. only one specialised physician. Therefore, generalizability may be limited. Nevertheless, several of our findings are in line with the available literature.

5 Conclusion

This study gives first valuable insights into FaBs in respect of interprofessional collaboration during a SMPCS pilot in rural Lucerne. Several recommendations became apparent that are necessary for successful interprofessional collaboration. Developing clearly defined roles and responsibilities and holding regular and structured interprofessional meetings should be considered within an interprofessional team. Advance care planning helps to facilitate interprofessional collaboration, as well an effective communication to reduce information loss and improve work satisfaction. Specific roles, such as care coordinators involving other professions may be a solution for improved interprofessional collaboration in the future. Furthermore, interprofessional education in healthcare should be given greater importance, as well as early sensitisation for palliative care in medical training. FaBs should be kept in mind when establishing new interprofessional health teams to avoid retroactively optimising teams, since awareness and consideration of FaBs in the implementation phase of a new SMPCS can provide the basis for successful interprofessional collaboration.

1

Supporting information

S1 File Questionnaire interprofessional collaboration.

(DOCX)

S2 File SMPCS standardised documents.

(DOCX)

S3 File Interview guide.

(DOCX)

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.r001
Decision Letter 0
Schneider Martin Academic Editor
© 2024 Martin Schneider
2024
Martin Schneider
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version0
4 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-42337Interprofessional collaboration during a specialised mobile palliative care service pilot in the rural area of LucernePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bucher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 18 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Martin Schneider

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments:

The reviewers reach very different conclusions.

In addition to the comments made by reviewer #2, I would raise the following points:

• There are too many abbreviations, some are used without correct introduction. Please reduce the number of abbreviations and abstain from those that are often used for other terms (like IPC – infection prevention and control).

• One should discuss the reasons why the interviewer proceeded “without further training in conducting interviews” (page 5). This weakness would also merit a brief discussion.

Please note that if you revise the manuscript, its publication cannot be taken for granted.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present a relevant and interesting evaluation of facilitators and barriers of interprofessional collaboration in specialist palliative care. The data is relevant for health-care professionals and policy makers. The mixed-method apporach is sound and the manuscript clearly structured and reasonable to follow. The appendix does not leave any open questions. Tables and figures are presented in good quality and add to understanding of the result. Orthography and semantics are impaccable, but please note, that I am not a native speaker. In the discussion, you may consider adding some information about the evidence base of specialist palliative care, but this must not be considered mandatory. If you do consider this recommencation hellpful, you may refer to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28676557/

Overall, we need more of such elaborate trials as presented by the working group from Lucerne.

Good job!

Reviewer #2: Researchers investigated the barriers and facilitators to interprofessional collaboration in mobile palliative care team. Whereas the topic is of great interest, the study presents multiple critical points.

Authors describe a mix method study investigating nurses’ and physicians’ experiences of collaborating in a pilot project aimed to implement home care specialised palliative care.

As general reflections, authors should better describe the pilot project with major points that will enable the readers to understand how the mobile team was formed, which professionals are part of this team and which model of care was used.

Authors should precisely state a research question.

For the qualitative part, given the small area in which the research was conducted, and the details provided about participants in the study, authors should reassure the reviewers about the respect of the anonymity of participants or provide less identifying details.

- Concerning the selection of participants authors should mention inclusion and exclusion criteria of participants and, given the aim to investigate interprofessional collaboration, precisely mention what were the professions of the “professional groups ( PG) “. Were all part of the palliative care specialised team? Were they part of the home care primary nurses, GPs or others? It needs a clear description of the population interviewed.

- Why were only professionals of the specialised mobile team invited to participate in the quantitative part of the study?

- Given that Reeves’ theory was used to analyse the data, a brief explanation of why this theory was chosen and why only two factors of this theory were used in a separate set of interviews should be provided.

- Why was content analysis chosen as a method to analyse interviews? How does content analysis link with a coding framework deductively chosen?

- The results section is divided in paragraphs with titles. How are the titles linked to the codes that emerged from the content analysis? The paragraphs are mostly descriptive of the collected data. There doesn’t appear to have a link with a coding, and a higher conceptualisation of data is needed, and a clear link to Reeves’s four factors should emerge.

- The number of participants in the survey is too low (17 participants) to contribute substantially to the understanding of the qualitative part nor allows to derive statistically substantiated data.

- Was the qualitative part conducted before or after the survey? Why was this approach chosen?

- Authors state that the results section for the qualitive part shows “relevant results”. Do they mean main themes or domains?

- The discussion section presents the facilitators and barriers of IPC. Their identification and analysis were stated as the aim of the research, for such reason should be considered as the results of the study.

- Data transcripts and coding book should not be provided for publication and interview grid and all study material presented in German should be selected and that relevant for publication should be translated into English. Quotes should be selected to represent the variety of opinions and translated into English.

Whereas an interesting area of research, the paper needs more work in its overall structure and the quality of academic English needs improvement.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Dr. Jan Gärtner

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.r002
Author response to Decision Letter 0
Submission Version1
1 May 2024

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your review and constructive feedback. Enclosed, you will find the revised documents reflecting your suggestions. Direct revisions can be found in the document titled "revised manuscript with tracked changes" and "response to reviewers". We greatly appreciate your cooperation throughout this process.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.r003
Decision Letter 1
Schneider Martin Academic Editor
© 2024 Martin Schneider
2024
Martin Schneider
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version1
5 Jun 2024

PONE-D-23-42337R1Interprofessional collaboration during a specialised mobile palliative care service pilot in the rural area of LucernePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bucher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Martin Schneider

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

For a future revision, please set your word processor to indicate changes in the text only, not in formatting. This will make it easier to read.

Please consistently spell -ise or -ize. It is Advance (not advanced) care planning, “and” instead of “&.”

Why was there no calculation for the sample size (2.3.2 Quantitative data collection)?

Why differences in interviews with physicians and nurses (2.3.1 Qualitative data collection)?

If you manage to shorten the manuscript a little more, your readers will appreciate.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.r004
Author response to Decision Letter 1
Submission Version2
17 Jul 2024

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the collaboration. The adjustments can be found in the documents "Revised Manuscript with Tracked Changes" and "Answers to Academic Editor". Should you have any questions or concerns, we look forward to your feedback.

Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Academic Editor.docx

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.r005
Decision Letter 2
Schneider Martin Academic Editor
© 2024 Martin Schneider
2024
Martin Schneider
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Submission Version2
22 Jul 2024

Interprofessional collaboration during a specialised mobile palliative care service pilot in the rural area of Lucerne

PONE-D-23-42337R2

Dear Dr. Bucher,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Martin Schneider

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

10.1371/journal.pone.0308256.r006
Acceptance letter
Schneider Martin Academic Editor
© 2024 Martin Schneider
2024
Martin Schneider
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
2 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-42337R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Bucher,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Martin Schneider

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE
==== Refs
References

1 World Health Organisation. Framework for action on interprofessional education & collaborative practice [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2023 January 14]. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/rest/bitstreams/66399/retrieve.
2 Schweighoffer R , Nagy N , Reeves E , Liebig B . Collaboration in Palliative Care Networks in Urban and Rural Regions of Switzerland. International Journal of Nursing and Health Science. 2019; 13 (1 ):18–21. Available from: https://edoc.unibas.ch/70316/2/Collaboration-in-Palliative-Care-Networks-in-Urban-and-Rural-Regions-of-Switzerland-1.pdf.
3 Schweighoffer R , Blaese R , Liebig B . Organizational determinants of information transfer in palliative care teams: A structural equation modeling approach. Soundy A , editor. PLoS ONE. 2021 Jun 3; 16 (6 ):e0252637. Available from: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252637 34081729
4 Shaw J , Kearney C , Glenns B , McKay S . Interprofessional team building in the palliative home care setting: Use of a conceptual framework to inform a pilot evaluation. J Interprof Care. 2016 Mar 3; 30 (2 ):262–4. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27026192/ doi: 10.3109/13561820.2015.1115395 27026192
5 Luzern Palliativ . Informations-Veranstaltung und Austausch [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2023 January 13]. Available from: https://www.palliativ-luzern.ch/application/files/9216/2460/4234/2021.06.22_Info-Veranstaltung_SMPCD_Dokumentation.pdf.
6 Luzern Kanton . Teilrevision Gesundheitsgesetz mit Schwerpunkt Bewilligungswesen und Aufsicht: Entwurf Änderung des Gesundheitsgesetzes [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2022 December 18]. Available from: https://www.lu.ch/-/klu/ris/cdws/document?fileids=0a18a8b344ac447087043844171e3e1b.
7 Tong A , Sainsbury P , Craig J . Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int. J. Qual. Health Care. 2007 Sep 16; 19 (6 ):349–57. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/19/6/349/1791966?login=false doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 17872937
8 Sharma A , Minh Duc NT , Luu Lam Thang T , Nam NH , Ng SJ , Abbas KS , et al . A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Oct; 36 (10 ):3179–87. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33886027/ doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06737-1 33886027
9 Eidgenossenschaft Schweizerische . Bundesgesetz über den Datenschutz [Internet]. 1993 Jul 1 [cited 2023 Jan 21]. Available from: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1993/1945_1945_1945/de.
10 Eidgenossenschaft Schweizerische . Bundesrecht: Bundesgesetz über die Forschung am Menschen (Humanforschungsgesetz, HFG) [Internet]. 2011 [cited 2024 Apr 13]. Available from: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/2013/617/de.
11 Vittadello F , Mischo-Kelling M , Wieser H , Cavada L , Lochner L , Naletto C , et al . A multiple-group measurement scale for interprofessional collaboration: Adaptation and validation into Italian and German languages. J Interprof Care. 2018 May 4; 32 (3 ):266–73. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820.2017.1396298 29116868
12 Kuckartz U , Rädiker S . Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung. 5th ed. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa; 2022.
13 Dresing T , Pehl T . Praxisbuch Interview, Transkription & Analyse: Anleitungen und Regelsysteme für qualitativ Forschende. 8th ed. Marburg : Eigenverlag; 2018.
14 Reeves S , Lewin S , Espin S , Zwarenstein M . Interprofessional teamwork for health and social care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
15 Schweighoffer R , Reeves E , Liebig B . Collaborative Networks in Primary and Specialized Palliative Care in Switzerland—Perspectives of Doctors and Nurses. Open Public Health J. 2020 Feb 18; 13 (1 ):36–43. Available from: https://openpublichealthjournal.com/VOLUME/13/PAGE/36/FULLTEXT/ doi: 10.2174/1874944502013010036
16 Reeves E , Liebig B , Schweighoffer R . Care Coordination in Palliative Home Care: Who Plays the Key Role? Int. J. Integr. Care. 2020 Sep 28; 20 (3 ):15. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7528663/ doi: 10.5334/ijic.5466 33041732
17 Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Faktenblatt Koordinierte Versorgung [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2023 March 21]. Available from: https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/bag/de/dokumente/nat-gesundheitspolitik/koordinierte_versorgung/faktenblatt_projekt_koordinierte_versorgung.pdf.download.pdf/Faktenblatt_Projekt_Koordinierte_Versorgung.pdf.
18 Alvarado V , Liebig B . Inter-Professional Collaboration between Family Doctors and Nurses at the End of Life. Challenges of Community-Based Palliative Care in Switzerland. J Comm Pub Health Nurs. 2016; 2 (2 ):124. Available from: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/interprofessional-collaboration-between-family-doctors-and-nurses-at-the-endof-life-challenges-of-communitybased-palliative-care-i-jcphn-1000124.php?aid=73952 doi: 10.4172/2471-9846.1000124
19 Reeves E , Schweighoffer R , Liebig B . An investigation of the challenges to coordination at the interface of primary and specialized palliative care services in Switzerland: A qualitative interview study. J Interprof Care. 2021 Jan 2; 35 (1 ):21–7. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820.2020.1724085 32101081
20 Mercer S. , Furler J. , Moffat K. , Fischbacher-Smith D. , Sanci L. Multimorbidity: technical series on safer primary care. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016.
21 Palliative zh+sh. Advance Care Planning (ACP). [Internet]. n.D. [cited 2023 February 27]. Available from: https://www.pallnetz.ch/acp-nopa.htm.
22 Rietjens JAC , Sudore RL , Connolly M , van Delden JJ , Drickamer MA , Droger M , et al . Definition and recommendations for advance care planning: an international consensus supported by the European Association for Palliative Care. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Sep; 18 (9 ):e543–51. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28884703/ doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30582-X 28884703
23 Brigitte Liebig VA . Conditions of Palliative Home Care: The Case of Family Physicians in Switzerland. Primary Health Care: Open Access. 2015; 5 (1 ):1–5. Available from: https://www.iomcworld.org/open-access/conditions-of-palliative-home-care-the-case-of-family-physicians-inswitzerland-2167-1079-1000180.pdf doi: 10.4172/2167-1079.1000180
24 Imhof L , Kipfer S , Waldboth V . Nurse-led palliative care services facilitate an interdisciplinary network of care. Int J Palliat Nurs. 2016 Aug 2; 22 (8 ):404–10. Available from: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/ijpn.2016.22.8.404 27568780
25 Hwang D , Woodrum RR . Inadequacy of Current Solutions to Address Provider Shortage. Chest. 2020 May; 157 (5 ):1055–7. Available from: https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)30541-9/fulltext doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.025 32386625
26 Simmons FM . CEU: Hospital overcrowding: An opportunity for case managers. The Case Manager. 2005 Jul; 16 (4 ):52–4. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1061925905001414 doi: 10.1016/j.casemgr.2005.06.004 16061159
27 Schuetze K , Cunningham B . The case manager connection: Taking a leadership role to improve patient outcomes. Nurse Leader. 2007 Feb; 5 (1 ):48–50. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1541461206002126 doi: 10.1016/j.mnl.2006.07.013
28 van der Plas AGM , Onwuteaka-Philipsen BD , Vissers KC , Deliens L , Jansen WJJ , Francke AL . Appraisal of cooperation with a palliative care case manager by general practitioners and community nurses: a cross-sectional questionnaire study. J Adv Nurs. 2016 Jan; 72 (1 ):147–57. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26412020/ doi: 10.1111/jan.12818 26412020
29 van der Plas AGM , Vissers KC , Francke AL , Donker GA , Jansen WJJ , Deliens L , et al . Involvement of a Case Manager in Palliative Care Reduces Hospitalisations at the End of Life in Cancer Patients; A Mortality Follow-Back Study in Primary Care. Ginsberg SD , editor. PLoS ONE. 2015 Jul 24; 10 (7 ):e0133197. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26208099/ doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133197 26208099
30 Giezendanner S , Jung C , Banderet H.-R. , Otte CA , Gudat H , Haller DM , et al . Kompetenz in Palliative Care im medizinischen Alltag. Swiss Med Forum. 2018 May; 18 (22 ):467–470. Available from: https://medicalforum.ch/de/detail/doi/smf.2018.03286 doi: 10.4414/smf.2018.03286
31 Gaertner J. et al ., Effect of specialist palliative care services on quality of life in adults with advanced incurable illness in hospital, hospice, or community settings: systematic review and meta-analysis, BMJ, p. j2925, Jul. 2017, doi: 10.1136/bmj.j2925 28676557
32 Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Interprofessionalität im Gesundheitswesen Beispiele aus der Bildung und Lehre. 2022 [cited 2023 February 21]. Available from: https://www.bag.admin.ch/dam/bag/de/dokumente/berufe-gesundheitswesen/Interprofessionalitaet/Publikationen/Broschuere%20Interprofessionalitaet%20im%20Gesundheitswesen1.pdf.download.pdf/d_BAG_Interprofessionalitaet_screen_II.pdf.
33 Bundesamt für Gesundheit. Palliativ Care [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 February 21]. Available from: https://www.bag.admin.ch/bag/de/home/strategie-und-politik/nationale-gesundheitsstrategien/strategie-palliative-care.html.
34 World Health Organization. Continuity and coordination of care: A practice brief to support implementation of the WHO Framework on integrated people-centred health services. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
35 Universität Luzern. CAS Palliative Care [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 February 22]. Available from: https://www.unilu.ch/weiterbildung/gmf/cas-palliative-care/.
