Context: Athletic trainers (ATs) play a central role in collaborating with health care professionals to provide patient care. However, this collaboration is not well-documented in the literature. Little is known regarding the benefits of interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) in athletic training (AT), barriers to implementing IPCP, ATs’ experiences with IPCP and strategies for improving IPCP in clinical practice. Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine ATs’ perceptions of, experiences with and methods for facilitating IPCP in AT. Design: Mixed methods study using a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews. Setting: Online survey instrument and telephone interviews. Participants: The survey was sent to 4500 ATs from the National Athletic Trainers’ Association Member Services database. Three hundred fourteen participants completed the online survey. A total of 36 individuals participated in telephone interviews. All participants provided direct patients care in the United States. Main Outcome Measure(s): Demographic information as well as perceptions, experiences and strategies associated with IPCP in AT were obtained. Descriptive statistics were used to examine ATs’ perceptions and experiences associated with IPCP. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to determine the differences in scores among the demographic variables. The significance level was set at p=< 0.05. Data for the open-ended questions were coded, organized and grouped into themes and subthemes. Results: Athletic trainers believed collaboration was beneficial to health care providers and patients. Working interprofessionally improved understanding of each other’s work with patient care. Additionally, ATs believed collaboration improved the quality and comprehensiveness of patient care. Participants were neutral on statements regarding barriers to IPCP. The majority of ATs believed they were typically the point person for the sports medicine team and they should be the point person of the team. Athletic trainers interacted with other ATs and orthopedic physicians either frequently or all the time; however the frequency of interactions was much lower with other healthcare providers. Through qualitative analysis four themes emerged: 1) benefits to IPCP; 2) barriers to IPCP; 3) exerpiences with IPCP; and 4) strategies to implement IPCP in AT. Specialized care and professional growth were the main benefits of collaboration. Barriers to IPCP included: 1) negative attitudes toward providers and IPCP; 2) misunderstanding of scope of practice; and 3) varying provider work schedules. Athletic trainers collaborate with a variety of health care professionals, however ATs have received limited education on IPCP and providers’ scopes of practice. Strategies to improve implementation of IPCP included: 1) initiated and developing relationships; 2) meeting face-to-face with providers; and 3) educating providers on IPCP and each other’s scope of practice. Conclusions: Athletic trainers had a positive attitude toward IPCP and believed IPCP improved patient outcomes and relationships between providers. To counteract ATs’ limited education on collaboration and other providers’ scopes of practice, ATs should find ways to implement education on collaboration and providers’ scopes of practice at the professional level. Faced with barriers such as negative attitudes, clinicians should seek out and initiate conversations with providers to improve understanding of each other’s scope of practice and build positive relationships.
