Cross pollination: multidisciplinary interaction to promote research utilisation

1. Cross pollination: multidisciplinary interaction to promote research utilisation Alison Hutchinson PhD Postdoctoral Research Fellow

2. Study methods • Setting • Pediatric • Sample • nurses, doctors and allied health professionals • Data collection • Observation – development of 2 clinical management tools • Interviews – 23, undertaken at 3 time points

3. Study Methods • Observation • Social interaction analysis (Bales, 1951) • Analysis of types of evidence used • Interviews • Thematic analysis

4. Findings • Doctors and allied health staff tended to bring the scientific evidence to the table • Nurses focused on the practical aspects of care and the ward routine • Nurses drew on experience and particularly problems that had arisen in their practice - anecdotal evidence • Nurses assumed and trusted that professionals from other disciplines would be acquainted with the best available evidence

5. Strong commitment to the task of tool development • Worked cooperatively • Positive interpersonal interactions • Sharing of information and expression of opinions were the most frequently observed interactions • Primary forms of evidence used were clinical experience and professional opinions which were then blended with available research evidence

6. Nurses felt collaborative involvement of all health disciplines in decision-making regarding patient care was mandatory, and believed they could not work in isolation from other disciplinary groups • Mutual respect - considered important to effective interdisciplinary communication and collaboration • Multi-status groups • Doctors, however, held the power when it came to decision-making (management of Crohn’s disease)

7. Interdisciplinary interaction during the meetings: • served to encourage and assist nurses’ use of research in their practice • Role modelling research use behaviour • Educating nurses about the basis for decisions and treatment orders • Exposure to champions for the adoption of specific research evidence • served to promote information sharing, discussion and debate about the applicability of specific evidence & promote adaptation of research evidence for practice

8. Conclusion • Clinical management tools have the capacity to facilitate the integration of research evidence into practice But, • the dialogue between multidisciplinary group members in the process of developing such tools, in and of itself, also plays a role in influencing research use

9. Challenges • Measurement and promotion of a culture of inquiry • Measurement of research use (patient and behaviour outcomes) in response to a specific strategy to facilitate RU • Promotion and facilitation of multidisciplinary interaction

10. Acknowledgements • Professor Linda Johnston • Professor Judith Parker • Associate Professor Nick Santamaria