Dow and colleagues’ (2017) recent editorial entitled Teamwork on the rocks: Rethinking interprofessional practice as networking offers an important contribution to the literature. Their editorial s...

The practice of, and research on interprofessional working in healthcare, commonly referred to as teamwork, has been growing rapidly. This has attracted international policy support flowing from the growing belief that patient safety and quality of care can only be achieved through the collective effort of the multiple professionals caring for a given patient. Despite the increasing policy support, the evidence for effectiveness lags behind: while there are supporting analytic epidemiological studies, few reliable intervention studies have been published and so we have yet to confirm a causal link. We argue that this lag in evidence development may be because interprofessional terms (e.g. teamwork, collaboration) remain conceptually unclear, with no common terminology or definitions, making it difficult to distinguish interventions from each other. In this paper, we examine published studies from the last decade in order to elicit current usage of terms related to interprofessional working; and, in so doing, undertake an initial empirical validation of an existing conceptual framework by mapping its four categories (teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking) against the descriptions of interprofessional interventions in the included studies. We searched Medline and Embase for papers describing interprofessional interventions using a standard approach. We independently screened papers and classified these under set categories following a thematic approach. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Twenty papers met our inclusion criteria. Identified interprofessional work interventions fall into a range, from looser to tighter links between members. Definitions are inconsistently and inadequately applied. We found the framework to be a helpful and practical tool for classifying such interventions more consistently. Our analysis enabled us to scrutinise the original dimensions of the framework, confirm their usefulness and consistency, and reveal new sub-categories. We propose a slightly revised typology and a classification tool (InterPACT) for future validation, with four mutually exclusive categories: teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking. Consistent use, further examination and refinement of the new typology and tool may lead to greater clarity in definition and design of interventions. This should support the development of a reliable and coherent evidence base on interventions to promote interprofessional working in health and social care.

Objectives (i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds. Design Systematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training). Data sources PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts. Eligibility criteria Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English. Results The overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders. Conclusions Evidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being.

Aim: To report the results of a mapping exercise by the European Federation of Nurses on current advanced practice nursing frameworks and developments across Europe.Design: Online, cross‐sectional, questionnaire study.Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed among 35 national nurses' associations across Europe in March 2021. The questionnaire solicited input on 60 items concerning key features of advanced practice nursing, intending to map existing developments and better understand the current state of advanced practice nursing in Europe. Data analysis used descriptive statistics, including counts and percentages, tabulation; open‐text responses were handled with thematic synthesis techniques.Results: The definition, sense‐making and operationalization of advanced practice nursing vary across Europe. Important variations were noted in the definition and requirements of advanced practice nursing, resulting in different views on the competencies and scope of practice associated with this role. Importantly, the level of education and training required to qualify and practice as an advanced practice nurse varies across European countries. Furthermore, only 11 countries reported the existence of a national legislation establishing minimum educational requirements.Conclusion: Significant variation exists in how countries define advanced practice nursing and how it is regulated at academic and practice levels. More research is needed to clarify whether this variation results from designing models of advanced practice nursing that work in different contexts; and what impact a standardized regulatory framework could have to grow the volume of advanced practice nurses across Europe.Impact: The current paper exposes the lack of clarity on the development and implementation of advanced practice nursing across Europe. We found significant variation in the definition, recognition, regulation and education of advanced practice nurses. Our data are essential to policymakers, professional associations and employers to ensure a coordinated and systematic effort in the consistency and ongoing development of advanced practice nurses across Europe.Patient or Public Contribution: No patient or public contribution applied; the participants were national nurses' associations.