Perspectives of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists on Interprofessional Collaboration Points de vue d’orthophonistes et d’audiologistes sur la collaboration interprofessionnelle

Background/Rationale: Recent legislative amendments to Ontario’s health professional regulatory system require regulated health professionals, including speech-language pathologists and audiologists (S-LP&As), to collaborate interprofessionally where they share controlled acts. These changes have implications on the interprofessional collaboration (IPC) of regulated health professionals and the delivery of client care. The purpose of the analysis was to examine the perspectives of S-LP&As on IPC. Methods: A mixed methods design and secondary analysis of a subset of data from a larger study was conducted with statistical analysis of survey data (n=171) and a content analysis of comments made by S-LP&As pertaining to factors that enable or impede IPC (n=78 individual comments). Results: Respondents had high agreement with statements that IPC is in the public interest (95.9%), improves quality of care (91.8%), and increases access to health services (87.1%). There were statistically significant differences in responses to the IPC statements for those under 40 years compared to those over 40 years related to comfort participating in IPC, IPC emphasized in education programs, experiences of teamwork among colleagues, exposure to IPC in workplace orientation, and the belief that IPC was in the public interest. Facilitators to IPC identified by respondents include positive personalities, openness to IPC, trust, respect for others’ perspectives, problem-solving collaboratively, and formal team meetings. However, respondents identified more barriers that impede IPC in professional practice including regulatory guidelines and “piecemeal” policies, limited physician involvement, heavy workloads, “turf” issues, and lack of understanding of other health professionals’ roles and expertise. Conclusions: This analysis provides preliminary findings on perspectives of S-LP&As on IPC within a Canadian context. In particular, these findings provide insight into facilitators that promote and barriers that impede IPC for S-LP&As in clinical practice. Work environments that foster and support collaboration, communication, trust, and mutual respect for all team members’ roles, expertise, and contributions within their scope of practice can improve health care providers’ satisfaction and optimize client care. Although S-LP&A respondents support the ideal of IPC, barriers exist that impede their ability to fully implement IPC in clinical practice. Given that S-LP&As work in a variety of settings with diverse populations, future changes to ministerial, regulatory, and administrative policies are needed to facilitate IPC in multidisciplinary practice environments. Bracia Eaton, BHSc. (Hons.), M.Cl.Sc Speech-Language Pathology Candidate, School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Western University, London, ON