303 / 916
25th European Congress of Psychiatry / European Psychiatry 41S (2017) S238–S302
S299
Conclusions
This study requires further inquiry on why a moder-
ate level of patient satisfaction declines when patients are treated
by an interprofessional team.
Fig. 1
Meta-analysis of the study before-after in patient’s satis-
faction.
Disclosure of interest
The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.02.181EW0568
How satisfied are undergraduate
students with interprofessional
training? Meta-analysis of a pilot
study
C. Lazzari
1 ,∗
, I. Masiello
21
North Essex NHS University Foundation Trust, United Kingdom
2
Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet,
Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
∗
Corresponding author.
Introduction
Learning to work in an interprofessional team
entails satisfaction in working with others.
Objective
Contextual assessment of the degree of satisfaction of
undergraduate healthcare students (doctors, nurses, occupational
therapists and physiotherapists) during interprofessional educa-
tion (IPE).
Aims
Meta-analysis of degree of satisfaction contextually
assessed during major interprofessional learning moments.
Methods
Thirty-six undergraduate health care students (med-
ical students, nursing students, occupational therapy students)
answered questions on a 5-point Likert scale (from “Very satisfied”
to “Very dissatisfied”). A meta-analysis with Tau
2
(
t
2
), Cochrane’s
Q
, and
I
2
analyzed IPE activities: self-reflection after daily training,
interactions with teachers, discussion of clinical cases during ward
rounds and patient care as a team.
Results
Meta-analysis reported significant heterogeneity in the
degrees of satisfaction
( Fig. 1 ):47.2% being “satisfied” with reflec-
tion after IPE,
{
t
2
= .011;
Q
(5df) = 30.03;
I
2
= 83%,
P
< .0001
}
; 45%
being “satisfied” during interactions with their teachers
{
t
2
= .01;
Q
(5df) = 25.74;
I
2
= 80%,
P
< .001
}
; 31.4% being “satisfied” about
the discussion of a clinical case during ward rounds
{
t
2
= .009;
Q
(5df) = 22.61;
I
2
= 77.89%,
P
< .001
}
; and 44.4% being “satisfied”
about patient care with the interprofessional team
{
t
2
= .009;
Q
(5df) = 22.99;
I
2
= 78.25%,
P
< .001
}
.
Conclusions
Undergraduate students show satisfaction with IPE
activities. This helps improve the quality of care and teamwork in
the busiest wards.
Fig. 1
Meta-analysis of student’s satisfaction during IPE activities.
Disclosure of interest
The authors have not supplied their decla-
ration of competing interest.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2017.02.182EW0569
Can patients differentiate when they
receive integrated care by
interprofessional teams?
Meta-analysis of a pilot study
C. Lazzari
1 ,∗
, M. Italo
21
North Essex NHS University Foundation Trust, General Adult
Psychatry, Pescara, Italy
2
Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet,
Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden, Clinical Education Centre,
Stockholm, Sweden
∗
Corresponding author.
Introduction
A patient’s quality of care and satisfaction depends
greatly on the perception of being treated and attended to by an
integrated team of professionals.
Objectives
To make students mindful of a patient’s perception
of being treated by a blended interprofessional team when under-
graduate students in training perform as a team in the patient’s
care.
Aims
To assess if patients under the care of interprofessional
teams perceive, they are being treated by an integrated team.
Methods
Twenty-three undergraduate students undergoing a
seven-day period of interprofessional training interviewed their
common patients after each day of practice. Responses were given
on a “yes-no-do not know” scale to the following question: “a team
of students fromdifferent professions has just treated and cared for
you. Do you think they have acted like a well-coordinated team?”
Results were obtained by meta-analysis.
Results
In 60.9% of cases (Tau
2
= 0.042; Q (2df) = 12.663; Het.
P
-
value = 0.002; I
2
= 84.206%)
( Fig. 1 ),patients perceived they were
treated by a well-coordinated interprofessional team; however,
this perception was not affected by the days of training by the same
IPE team.
Conclusions
Results suggest that other interpersonal factors
might be involved in team-to-patient interactions that are barely
affected by interprofessional training.