Journal of Interprofessional Care

ISSN: 1356-1820 (Print) 1469-9567 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ijic20

Staff perceptions of collaboration on a new

interprofessional unit using the Assessment of
Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS)

Dawn Prentice, Bonny Jung, Karyn Taplay, Karl Stobbe & Lisa Hildebrand

To cite this article: Dawn Prentice, Bonny Jung, Karyn Taplay, Karl Stobbe & Lisa Hildebrand
(2016) Staff perceptions of collaboration on a new interprofessional unit using the Assessment
of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS), Journal of Interprofessional Care, 30:6,
823-825, DOI: 10.1080/13561820.2016.1218447

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1218447

Published online: 05 Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 809

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ijic20
JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE
2016, VOL. 30, NO. 6, 823–825
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1218447

SHORT REPORT

Staff perceptions of collaboration on a new interprofessional unit using the

Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS)
Dawn Prenticea, Bonny Jungb, Karyn Taplaya, Karl Stobbec, and Lisa Hildebrandd
a
Department of Nursing, Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada; bSchool of Rehabilitation Science, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster
University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; cMichael G. DeGroote School of Medicine, Niagara Regional Campus, McMaster University, St. Catharines,
Ontario, Canada; dNiagara Health System, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The aim of this study was to obtain baseline information on staff attitudes and perceptions of Received 18 March 2016
interprofessional collaboration on a newly formed interprofessional education unit. The Assessment of Revised 25 May 2016
Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS) was administered to 54 interprofessional team Accepted 26 July 2016
members on a 30-bed medical interprofessional education (IPE) unit. We found that the team members KEYWORDS
respected each other but felt they needed more organisational support to further develop team skills. Interprofessional care;
Additionally, team members noted that they did not have enough time for team reflection or to make interprofessional education;
changes to the team processes. The results obtained from this study will help to develop and refine questionnaire designs
educational strategies to assist the staff working on the IPE unit.

Introduction
In March 2013, a new 375-bed community hospital opened in
southern Ontario, Canada. The opening of the hospital included a
merger of some programmes and services to a new regional site
and provided the opportunity to plan and implement an inter-
professional education (IPE) unit. Three regional academic part-
ners, two universities and a community college representing
nursing, medicine, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and occu-
pational and physiotherapist assistant programmes collaborated
with hospital partners to plan for the operation of the IPE unit.
Although some student learning units are located in hospitals
that focus on interprofessional education (Brashers, Owen, &
Haizlip, 2015; Jensen et al., 2012; McVey, Vessey, Kenner, &
Pressler, 2014), this is a relatively new educational concept.
Much of the published literature from student learning environ-
ments located in hospitals has focused on the evaluation of the
student learners in hospital settings whereas our study focused on
understanding the perceptions and attitudes of staff who work
along with the students and clinical supervisors. The purpose of
this study was to obtain baseline information on staff attitudes’
and perceptions’ of interprofessional collaboration on a newly
formed IPE unit.
Methods
A cross-sectional descriptive study took place on a 30-bed inpa-
tient medical unit during May–June 2013. All clinical and admin-
istrative staff who were employed on the unit were asked to
complete the Assessment of Interprofessional Team
Collaboration Scale (AITCS) (Orchard, King, Khalili, & Bezzina,
2012), a 37-item questionnaire consisting of three subscales, a 19-
item partnership/shared decision making scale, an 11-item
cooperation subscale and a 7-item coordination subscale, which
assists practicing health care teams to determine how well they are
collaborating. Using a Likert type scale, each item on the subscale
is assigned a score between 1 and 5, with 1 = never, 2 = rarely,
3 = occasionally, 4 = most of the time, and 5 = always. The AITCS
also includes five demographic questions. The AITCS has a
reported internal consistency estimate for reliability of each sub-
scale ranging from 0.80 to 0.97, with an overall reliability of 0.98
(Orchard et al., 2012). Data were entered into a statistical package
for analysis and interpretation.
Ethical considerations
Ethics clearance was obtained from the research ethics board at
the three academic institutions as well as the hospital research
ethics board.
Results
Nineteen of the 54 staff members completed the AITCS yielding a
response rate of 35%. Respondents included: 11 registered nurses
(57.9%), 3 registered practical nurses (15.8%), allied health profes-
sionals (26.3%), 1 dietician, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1
therapy assistant and 1 administrative staff member. The mean
age was 38 years (range 23–58, SD = 12) and 59% were employed
full-time. The average years of work experience was 14 years, the
range was 2 months (new graduate) to 41 years (SD = 13.5).
Partnership/shared decision-making subscale
As shown in Table 1, the highest ranked item in this subscale was
“coordinate health and social services (e.g., financial, occupation,

CONTACT Dawn Prentice dprentice@brocku.ca Department of Nursing, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada.
© 2016 Taylor & Francis
824 D. PRENTICE ET AL.

Table 1. Partnership/shared decision-making subscale results. Table 2. Cooperation and coordination subscale results.
Percentage of staff that agreed with Percentage of staff that agreed with
Statement statement most or all of the time Statement statement most or all of the time
Establish agreements on goals for each 63% Cooperation Subscale Results
patient we care for Share power with each other 79%
Are committed to the goals set out by 68.5% Help and support each other 84%
the team Respect and trust each other 84%
Include patients in setting goals for 74% Are open and honest with each other 95%
their care Make changes to their team functioning 53%
Listen to the wishes of their patients 76% based on reflective reviews
when determining the process of Strive to achieve mutually satisfying 68%
care chosen by the team resolution for differences of opinions
Meet and discuss patient care on a 74% Understand the boundaries of what 68%
regular basis each other can do
Would agree that there is support from 47% Understand that there are shared 84%
the organisation for teamwork knowledge and skills between health
Coordinate health and social services 84% providers on the team
(e.g. financial, occupation, housing, Exhibit a high priority for gaining 74%
connections with community, insight from patients about their
spiritual) based upon patient care wishes/desires
needs Create a cooperative atmosphere 90%
Use a variety of communication means 68% among the members when
(e.g. written messages, email, addressing patient situations,
electronic patient records, phone, interventions and goals
informal discussion, etc.) Establish a sense of trust among the 84%
Use consistent communication with 68% team members
team members to discuss patient Coordination Subscale Results
care Apply a unique definition of 58%
Are involved in goal setting for each 68.5% Interprofessional collaborative
patient practice to the practice setting
Listen to and consider other members’ 79% Equally divide agreed upon goals 68%
voices and opinions/views in regard amongst the team
to deciding on individual care Encourage and support open 72%
planning processes communication, including the
Would agree when care decisions are 63% patients and their relatives during
made, the leader strives to obtain team meetings
consensus on planned processes Use an agreed upon process to resolve 68%
from all parties conflicts
Feel a sense of belonging to the group 65% Support the leader for the team varying 79%
Establish deadlines for steps and 63% depending on the needs of our
outcome markers in regards to patients
patient care Together select the leader for our team 47%
Jointly agree to communicate plans for 68% Openly support inclusion of the patient 58%
patient care in our team meetings
Consider alternative approaches to 53%
achieve shared goals
Encourage each other and patients and 63%
their families to use the knowledge (Table 2). All of the items in this subscale regarding team coopera-
and skills that each of us can bring in tion, trust, respect and support, scored at 84% for most of the time,
developing plans of care
Focus of our teamwork is consistently 79%
or always. The lowest scored item (53%) was “make changes to
the patient their team functioning based on reflective reviews.”
Work with the patient and his/her 68%
relatives in adjusting care plans
Note. Items from AITCS from Orchard et al., 2012. Coordination subscale
Seventy-nine per cent of the participants noted that most of
time or always, they “support the leader for the team depend-
housing, connections with community, spiritual) based upon ing on the needs of our patients.” However only 47%
patient care needs.” Eighty-four per cent of the staff identified responded that most of the time, or always, they “together
this as occurring most of the time or always, when they are work- select the leader for the team.” In response to the item that the
ing as a team. The rest of the items in this subscale scored from team members “openly support inclusion of the patient in our
63% to 79%, indicating that most of the time or always, team team meetings,” 58% agreed that this occurred most of the
members engage in these behaviours. However, 53% of partici- time or always.
pants identified that they “consider alternative approaches to
achieve shared goals” most or all of the time and 47% of the
participants indicated that “there is support from the organisation Discussion
for teamwork” most or all of the time. The purpose of this study was to obtain baseline information
on staff attitudes and perceptions of interprofessional colla-
boration and to determine staffs’ perception of current team
Cooperation subscale
functioning. The respondents answered affirmatively to items
Within this subscale, 95% of the respondents noted that they “are about team members supporting, respecting, and being open
open and honest with each other” when working as a team and honest with each other. However, the results also

indicated that there are still many areas of teamwork that
need to be addressed such as the need for organisational
support for teamwork. As a first step, an analysis of why
staff perceives a lack of organisational support should be
undertaken and then strategies to address this perception
could be implemented. Perhaps the manager could meet
with the staff to ascertain what type of support the staff
requires in order to feel that they have time to engage in
teamwork. This might entail additional staffing or designating
time during staff meetings to discuss teamwork. Simulated
exercises for team building training and development may
also be a strategy to assist with teams learning to work
together (Cashman, Reidy, Cody, & Lemay, 2004).
Another area identified by the respondents was that rarely do
team members make changes to their team functioning based on
reflective reviews. This indicates that purposeful reflection does
not seem to be an ongoing part of the team functioning. Schippers,
Den Hartog, and Koopman (2007) articulate that the extent to
which teams reflect and act on their functioning has been identi-
fied as an important factor in facilitating effective teamwork. Time
could be provided at staff meetings for staff members to reflect on
their team functioning. In addition, offering continuing education
opportunities through workshops, seminars and lunch and learns
on topics such as reflective practice and teamwork, selecting a
team leader, including the patient as a team member and how to
consider approaches to share goals, may also be helpful due to the
nature of hospital units and the turnover of staff.
With regard to study limitations, a major limitation was
the small sample size. Despite the in-person recruitment
methods used to enrol participants it was difficult to recruit
clinical staff. Additionally, the absence of representation from
all disciplines most notably physicians was a limitation. We
were unable to capture all clinical staffs’ perceptions of inter-
professional collaboration on the unit. However, given this
was a new interprofessional unit, ‘taking the pulse’ of the staff
using a new team collaboration tool at the onset of the unit
still provided valuable information regarding perceived
strengths and areas for intervention.
JOURNAL OF INTERPROFESSIONAL CARE 825
Concluding comments
This study contributed evidence to the research on the perceptions
and attitudes of staff about interprofessional collaboration on a
newly formed IPE hospital unit. Taking the pulse of the team was
done through the AITCS tool and was critical in gauging the
team’s collaborative state. The data suggest that the team members
respected each other but felt they needed more organisational
support to further develop team skills. The results from this
study will help us develop and refine educational strategies for
the staff.
Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest. The authors alone are responsible
for the content and writing of this article.
References
Brashers, V., Owen, J., & Haizlip, J. (2015). Interprofessional educa-
tion and practice guide No. 2: Developing and implementing a
center for interprofessional education. Journal of Interprofessional
Care, 29, 95–99. doi:10.3109/13561820.2014.962130
Cashman, S., Reidy, P., Cody, K., & Lemay, C. (2004). Developing and
measuring progress toward collaborative, integrated, interdisciplin-
ary health care teams. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 18, 183–
196. doi:10.1080/13561820410001686936
Jensen, D. C., Nørgaard, B., Draborg, E., Vestergaard, E., Odgaard, E., &
Sørensen, J. (2012). Organizational evaluation of an interprofessional
study unit – Results from a Danish case study. Journal of
Interprofessional Care, 26, 497–504. doi:10.3109/13561820.2012.715097
McVey, C., Vessey, J. A., Kenner, C. A., & Pressler, J. L. (2014).
Interprofessional dedicated education unit: An academic practice partner-
ship.Nurse Educator,39(4),153–154.doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000051
Orchard, C. A., King, G. A., Khalili, H., & Bezzina, M. B. (2012).
Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale
(AITCS): Development and testing of the instrument. Journal of
Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 32(1), 58–67.
doi:10.1002/chp.21123
Schippers, M., Den Hartog, D., & Koopman, P. (2007). Reflexivity in
teams: A measure and correlates. Applied Psychology, 56(2), 189–
211. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00250.x