Search for a command to run...
Objectives To integrate and analyze domestic and international literature on interprofessional collaboration (hereafter, collaboration) in home-based palliative care for patients with terminal cancer, and to support the development of the evaluation of indicators of collaboration.Methods Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (via Igaku Chuo Zasshi) were searched using the terms "terminal cancer", "home", "palliative care", "interprofessional", and "indicators". The retrieved literature was thoroughly reviewed, emphasizing descriptions of the content, outcomes, and evaluation of "collaboration". The information obtained was organized according to the Donabedian framework for healthcare quality assessment: Structure (care-supporting resources and systems), Process (collaborative procedures and content), and Outcome (results or changes attributable to collaboration). All processes, from the formulation of the search strategy, to selection and classification of the literature, were conducted through discussion and agreement among the investigators.Results The initial search identified 159 articles (Medline, 16; CINAHL, 10; Cochrane Library, 0; Web of Science via Igaku Chuo Zasshi, 133), of which 150 were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Nine eligible articles were supplemented with 10 articles, yielding 19 articles for analysis. These articles, published between 2001 and 2020, included 13 Japanese and six international studies. The topics included five scale development and validation studies on "collaboration", five qualitative studies identifying "collaboration" indicators, seven studies evaluating initiatives to strengthen "collaboration", and two studies evaluating the introduction of "collaboration" tools. Structure indicators included the care system, team relationships, information sharing, operations, community-based comprehensive collaboration systems, and 24-hour drug supply systems. Process indicators included visualization of the collaboration process, unification of team policies, formation of team trust, active collaborative behaviors by professionals, and educational support to enhance collaborative capacity. Outcome indicators included subjective evaluations from patients, families, and diverse professionals, and objective evaluations based on performance data.Conclusion The Structure, Process, and Outcome indicators identified in this study provide a foundation for developing measures to evaluate and promote collaboration. Future studies should standardize these indicators and assess their relationships with outcome measures to develop evaluation tools that enhance collaboration in clinical practice.