Abstract
Abstract
Objective:
This study explores interprofessional collaboration among medical and non-medical personnel planning and implementing international crisis health and medical relief efforts, and how disciplinary and professional background influences these activities.
Methods:
This study analyzes semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in organizations medical or health services to the Ebola epidemic in West Africa (2014-2016) or the 2015 Nepal earthquake.
Results:
Disciplinary background, sometimes coupled with organization role, shaped how relief workers engaged in the process of planning and implementing crisis medical relief. There were 3 thematic areas where these differences emerged: issue focus, problem -solving approaches, and decision-making approaches. Solutions from the field emerged as a fourth theme.
Conclusions:
The study demonstrates medical relief required collaboration across medical and non-medical professions and highlights the importance of relief workers’ disciplinary background in shaping the planning and implementation of crisis medical relief. Successful collaboration requires that people involved in crisis relief communicate the relevance of their own expertise, identify limits of their own and others’ disciplinary perspective(s), seek out strengths in others’ expertise, and can identify/ respond appropriately to others who do not see their own disciplinary limits, as well as learn these skills before engaging in relief.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference39 articles.
1. 37. Kelman, B. All ICU beds full at most hospitals in every major Tennessee metro area, says hospital association. Tennessean. Published August 19, 2021. https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/health/2021/08/19/tennessee-icu-beds-full-most-hospitals-every-major-metro-area/8193199002/. Accessed Oct 4, 2021.
2. Professional differences in interprofessional working
3. Concept Analysis of Interdisciplinary Collaboration
4. A disaster by any other name?: COVID‐19 and support for an All‐Hazards approach