ArticleActa bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis2019
Inter-Professionalism in Health Care Post-graduate specialization: an innovative Laboratory.
Article in Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient safety incidents in mental health residential services: a multicenter, crosssectional, survey-based study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Unveiling the interplay of medical professionalism, mental well-being and coping in medical students: a qualitative phenomenological study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- SIMED-New Doc course, a matter of reflection.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2023Article
- Interprofessional collaboration between different health care professions in Emilia Romagna.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- SARS-CoV-2 docet.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2021Article
- Italian Validation of the Chiba Interprofessional Competency Scale (CICS29).Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2020Article
- Evaluation of empathy among undergraduate nursing students: a three-year longitudinal study.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimInter- professional Collaboration (IPC) is an important component of a well-functioning healthcare system. It is linked to improvements in patient safety and case management, optimal use of the skills of each healthcare team member and provision of better health services. Inter- professional Education (IPE), is one key factor in the development of positive behaviors useful for IPC: the basic and post-basic training are key moments to raise awareness, train and help implement the IPC. Aim of this paper is to present and evaluate the use of an innovative laboratory of Consensus Conference implemented in the Nursing Post-graduate specialization at the University of Parma to train students to IPC.
methodsAn Innovative Laboratory inspired by of the Consensus Conference (CC) methodology on the "Integrated Narrative Nursing Assessment" was designed. Three Post-graduate specialization courses were involved and assigned to different tasks in the CC, according to the characteristics of the specializations.
resultsStrengths and weaknesses of the methodology were analyzed. Strengths: students' engagement in their competencies building, and the acquisition inter-professional collaboration skills. Weaknesses: the lack of time to develop the whole process, and the need of a deeper guidance in the scientific production.
conclusionsAlthough the methodology have to be continuously improved through practice, this experimental Laboratory reached the aim of offering a real experience of IPC to the students. They really collaborated with different professionals to reach a common goal and being already considered an expert.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.