Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Cross-sectional survey highlights multidimensional collaboration impact on outcomes for technology-dependent children in community settings.
Aim This study aimed to clarify the relationship between the implementation of multi‐professional collaboration to support “medical care in daily life” for technology‐dependent children in community settings and their outcomes. Methods A cross‐sectional survey was conducted in 18 prefectures across Japan, involving 343 professionals, including consultation support specialists, visiting nurses, care workers, school nurses, and school nurse teachers. Fifty‐five items related to the three elements of multi‐professional collaboration—Gearing up individually, Working together, and Achieving results—were analyzed using factor analysis, one‐way ANOVA, multiple regression analysis, and the Mann–Whitney U test with SPSS version 29. Ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee. Results Nine factors were identified: two related to prerequisites, four to collaborative practices, and three to outcomes. All factors demonstrated high internal consistency. Appropriate staffing of professionals, openness to new members, and the presence of a leader were significantly associated with all collaborative practices. Furthermore, communication through shared problem‐solving and mutual respect for professional roles was associated with all activities. Collaboration centered on the needs of individuals and families showed the strongest association with positive outcomes. Conclusion Three essential elements for strengthening multi‐professional collaboration were identified: (1) structured placement and flexible integration of professionals, (2) mutual trust and respect among professionals, and (3) sustained collaboration centered on the needs of individuals and families. These findings provide a practical framework for improving team‐based care for technology‐dependent children in community settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R Watanabe (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: