Didde Cramer Jensen

Interprofessional clinical training improves self-efficacy of health care students

Background: Interprofessional collaboration potentially enhances patient safety and satisfaction, and reduces tensions and conflicts among health professionals. However, health professionals often lack sufficient knowledge of other professional roles and competences to engage in interprofessional teamwork. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an interprofessional training programme on students’ perceived self-efficacy. Methods: A quasi-experimental study with an intervention group (239 students) and a control group (405 students). The intervention was an interprofessional clinical study (ICS) unit including students from nursing, medicine, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, laboratory technology and radiography. Data on students’ perceived self-efficacy were collected through web-based questionnaires. Aspects of self-efficacy measured were: (1) collaboration with other professions in planning goals and actions for patients; (2) collaboration with other professions for rehabilitation; (3) identifying the functions of other professions and (4) assessing and describing patients’ needs and problems. Results: All scores of perceived self-efficacy for the ICS group improved over time although one score change was non-significant (p = 0.08). After adjustment for baseline differences and the score change for the control group, the ICS groups self-efficacy score gain remained statistically significant. Conclusion: The study showed that interprofessional training improved students’ perception of self-efficacy more than traditional clinical training.

Does Core Task Matter for Decision-Making? A Comparative Case Study on Whether Differences in Job Characteristics Affect Discretionary Street-Level Decision-Making

This article sets out to test the hypothesis that differences in fundamental job characteristics (service vs. regulation) affect discretionary street-level decision-making. The hypothesis was tested by examining whether systematic variation could be found in the moral assessments on which street-level bureaucrats performing different types of core tasks base their decisions. The issue was addressed in a comparative case study comprising three institutions, which differ systematically as far as variables of tasks are concerned. Findings showed that differences in core tasks do affect discretionary decision-making, as divergent moral assessments determine and justify decision-making across different core tasks.