https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2022.56.1.3106
2022. Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: With the introduction of new concepts of work culture and contemporary forms of collaboration 
in interdisciplinary teams, inter-complementarity and understanding of the skills of each professional group 
have become indicators of successful interprofessional collaboration. The aim of this study was to identify the 
characteristics of the process of interprofessional collaboration in healthcare teams, as well as to pinpoint the 
key components of effective collaboration. 
Methods: In this non-experimental quantitative study, we used a modified Interprofessional Collaboration 
Scale in order to assess interprofessional collaboration in interdisciplinary teams. Our random sample 
included 203 healthcare professionals. Of these, 147 (72.4%) were nurses, 27 (13.3%) were doctors and 29 
(14.3%) were other healthcare professionals. Data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics, correlation 
coefficient (Spearman correlation), Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests and Mann-Whitney U test.
Results: The results show statistically significant differences in the level of satisfaction between individual 
health profiles. On average, doctors rated their collaboration with nurses most positively ( = 3.03, s = 0.26) 
and were also satisfied with their collaboration with other healthcare professionals ( = 2.86, s = 0.22). Nurses 
rated their collaboration with doctors least favourably ( = 2.36, s = 0.42).
Discussion and conclusion: The results provide information on the evaluation of the current level of 
collaboration in interdisciplinary teams, with doctors rating this collaboration more positively and nurses 
being more critical in their assessment. The differences in the views and attitudes of healthcare professionals 
regarding the importance of collaboration indicate that there is a need for changes in formal education in the 
field of interprofessional collaboration.
IZVLEČEK 
Uvod: Sodobni čas prinaša nove koncepte delovne kulture in nove oblike sodelovanja v interdisciplinarnih 
timih in prav medsebojna komplementarnost ter razumevanje spretnosti posameznih poklicnih skupin 
so kazalnik uspešnega medpoklicnega sodelovanja. Namen raziskave je bil ugotoviti značilnosti procesa 
medpoklicnega sodelovanja v zdravstvenih timih in identificirati ključne komponente dobrega sodelovanja.
Metode: V neeksperimentalni opisni kvantitativni raziskavi je bil uporabljen prirejen vprašalnik za 
oceno medpoklicnega sodelovanja v interdisciplinarnih timih. V priložnostni vzorec sta bila zajeta 203 
zdravstvena delavca. Od tega je bilo 147 (72,4 %) medicinskih sester, 27 (13,3 %) zdravnikov in 29 (14,3 %) 
drugih zdravstvenih sodelavcev. Podatki so bili analizirani z osnovno deskriptivno statistiko, korelacijskim 
koeficientom (Spermanova korelacija), Kolmogorov-Smirnovovim in Shapiro-Wilkovim testom ter Mann-
Whitneyjev U-testom.
Rezultati: Ugotovitve kažejo statistično pomembne razlike o stopnji zadovoljstva med zdravstvenimi poklici. 
V povprečju so najbolj zadovoljni zdravniki s svojim sodelovanjem tako z medicinskimi sestrami (  = 3,03, 
s = 0,26) kot z drugimi zdravstvenimi sodelavci (  = 2,86, s = 0,22). Najmanj zadovoljne so medicinske sestre 
s sodelovanjem z zdravniki (  = 2,36, s = 0,42). 
Diskusija in zaključek: Na osnovi rezultatov smo dobili vpogled v oceno trenutne stopnje sodelovanja v 
interdisciplinarnem timu, pri čemer so zdravniki optimistični v oceni sodelovanja, v nasprotju pa so 
medicinske sestre v svoji oceni bolj kritične. Različni pogledi in odnos zdravstvenih delavcev do sodelovanja 
kažejo potrebo po umestitvi teme poklicnega sodelovanja v formalno izobraževanje. 
Keywords: team work; 
healthcare professionals; 
mutual relationships; mutual 
attitude; communication
Ključne besede: timsko delo; 
zdravstveni delavci; medsebojni 
odnosi; medsebojna razmerja; 
komunikacija
¹ Institute of Oncology, Zaloška 
cesta 2, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
² University of Primorska, 
Faculty of Health Sciences, 
Department of Nursing, Polje 
42, 6310 Izola, Slovenia 
The article is based on the 
master thesis of Petra Šanc 
Interprofessional cooperation in 
health care (2021)./Članek je 
nastal na podlagi magistrskega 
dela Petre Šanc Medpoklicno 
sodelovanje v zdravstvu (2021).
* Corresponding author/
Korespondenčni avtor: 
petrasanc@gmail.com
Original scientific article/Izvirni znanstveni članek
Interprofessional collaboration in interdisciplinary healthcare teams: A quantitative 
descriptive study
Medpoklicno sodelovanje v interdisciplinarnih zdravstvenih timih: kvantitativna 
opisna raziskava
Petra Šanc1, *, Mirko Prosen2
Received/Prejeto: 3. 6. 2021  
Accepted/Sprejeto: 11. 2. 2022
10 Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
Introduction
Perfection in collaboration is a concept which 
is almost impossible to achieve, as healthcare 
professionals often hold different views on how 
to provide the best patient care (Schot, Tummers, 
& Noordegraaf, 2019). While lack of knowledge 
and fear of losing one's autonomy can lead to the 
emergence of defence mechanisms which may hinder 
effective interprofessional collaboration, extensive 
expertise in one's own profession and consideration 
of innovative approaches from other professions 
undoubtedly increases the possibility of equal 
collaboration (Reeves, Pelone, Harrison, Goldman, 
& Zwarenstein, 2017). Most authors provide a similar 
definition of interprofessional collaboration, namely 
as an enhancement of the traditional team approach 
to patient care (Kendall-Gallagher, Reeves, Alexanian, 
& Kitto, 2017) involving two or more professionals 
from different fields of healthcare to achieve the 
best treatment outcomes (Serrano-Gemes & Rich-
Ruiz, 2017). This goal can only be achieved if the 
interprofessional collaboration approach involves 
all healthcare professionals and healthcare providers 
engaged in patient care (Ciemins, Brant, Kersten, 
Mullette, & Dickerson, 2016; Schot et al., 2019) to jointly 
strive for the formation of a so-called communicating 
professional team which enables collaboration by 
establishing optimal interdisciplinary relations. 
Effective interaction between healthcare professionals 
brings important benefits to collaboration and 
consequently compensates for potential deficiencies 
in interpersonal relationships (Pullon, Morgan, 
Macdonald, McKinlay, & Gray, 2016). Without 
doubt, promoting collaboration and respect for 
the values (both professional and personal) of all 
professionals are activities which lead to improved 
collaboration (Veingerl Čič, 2017). In practice, 
the level of interprofessional collaboration is still 
unsatisfactory, as healthcare professionals too often 
act as individuals (Vestergaard & Nørgaard, 2018). 
The dominance of doctors still has professional power 
over other colleagues (Wieser et al., 2019), as doctors 
are traditionally accustomed to dominant roles, 
and similar perceptions held by members of other 
professions create barriers to changing the attitudes 
related to existing relationships (Bowles et al., 2016). 
Future healthcare professionals should therefore be 
guided already during their formal training to change 
such stereotypical assumptions through practical 
experience, as they can later lead to negative outcomes 
of collaboration (Foster & Macleod Clark, 2015). 
Previous research on interprofessional collaboration 
in Slovenia shows that most studies still focus on the 
two most common profiles in healthcare (Strauss, 
Goriup, Križmarić, & Koželj, 2018; Rojko, 2019) and 
rarely on collaboration in a broader team of healthcare 
professionals (Korenčan, 2020). 
Aim and objectives 
The aim of this study was to identify the key 
components and outcomes of effective interprofessional 
collaboration and to determine how interprofessional 
collaboration is evaluated by healthcare professionals 
who are members of interdisciplinary teams. At the 
same time, we also examined the relationship and 
interconnectedness of socio-demographic variables as 
well as some characteristics of the work process and 
their impact on the level of healthcare professionals' 
satisfaction with interprofessional collaboration. 
We formulated the following hypotheses: 
H1: There are statistically significant differences 
between nurses, doctors, and other healthcare 
professionals which determine their level of 
satisfaction with interprofessional collaboration.
H2: There are statistically significant differences in 
the perception of interprofessional collaboration 
according to healthcare professionals' age, length of 
service (work experience) and working hours.
H3: There are no statistically significant differences 
between individual healthcare organisations (primary, 
secondary, tertiary level of healthcare and social care 
settings) and the level of satisfaction of healthcare 
professionals with interprofessional collaboration.
Methods
A quantitative non-experimental descriptive research 
design was used. Data were collected through a 
questionnaire survey.
Description of the research instrument
We conducted a survey using the Interprofessional 
Collaboration Scale (ICS) (Kenaszchuk, Reeves, 
Nicholas, & Zwarenstein, 2010), the aim of which 
is to assess interprofessional collaboration between 
nurses, doctors and other healthcare professionals 
and which is a commonly used questionnaire in 
research worldwide (Bowles et al., 2016; Romijn, 
Teunissen, de Bruijne, Wagner, & de Groot, 2016; 
Halbert, 2017;  Wieser et al., 2019). The questionnaire 
is freely available online. Following a pilot study which 
confirmed the comprehensibility and clarity of the 
questionnaire, we calculated its preliminary internal 
reliability (Cronbach's coefficient α), which was 0.73. 
The questionnaire also included socio-demographic 
data (gender, age, level of education, length of 
service) and other data related to the characteristics 
of work at different levels of healthcare (average 
total number of hours spent at work). The ICS 
questionnaire, consisting of 26 statements, was used 
to assess nurses' working relationships with doctors 
and other healthcare professionals (physiotherapists, 
occupational therapists, pharmacists (masters of 
pharmacy) and vice versa. Respondents were asked to 
11Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
rate their level of agreement with each statement on a 
four-point Likert scale from 1 (Disagree) to 4 (Strongly 
Agree). A reliability test conducted on the final sample 
of all useful respondents yielded a Cronbach's alpha 
coefficient of 0.841, confirming the high reliability of 
the questionnaire.
Description of the sample
We used a random sample of healthcare professionals, 
comprising a total of 203 participants. Most of 
them were female (n = 154, 75.9%), with a mean 
age of 35.9 years (s = 8.94). In terms of their 
professional profile, most participants were nurses 
with secondary or tertiary level of education (n = 
147, 72.4%), followed by a group of other healthcare 
professionals: physiotherapists, occupational therapists 
and pharmacists (n = 29, 14.3%) and a group of doctors 
(n = 27, 13.3%). In terms of the level of healthcare 
provision, respondents were employed at the primary 
(n = 40, 19.7%), secondary (n = 64, 31.5%) and 
tertiary (n = 78, 38.4%) levels of healthcare and in 
social care institutions (n = 21, 10.3%). Their years of 
service (average values calculated from data divided 
into five groups according to the number of years of 
work experience) totalled an average of 13.0 years 
(s = 0.92), and their working hours an average of 45.1 
hours per week (s = 6.91).
Description of the research procedure and data 
analysis
The questionnaire was emailed to healthcare 
professionals working at different levels of the health 
system. Participation in the survey was voluntary and 
anonymous. The online questionnaire, accompanied by 
a statement of purpose and method of completing the 
questionnaire, was made available on the 1KA online 
survey platform from 14 October 2020 to 4 November 
2020. The data from the participants' responses were 
collected in a database on a web server. In the process 
of data collection, a database of participants' responses 
was created, excluding their first and last names and 
e-mail addresses to ensure anonymity. 
The empirical data obtained were processed using 
the IBM SPSS statistical software, version 22 (SPSS 
Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). The following statistical 
analyses and tests were conducted using this software: 
descriptive statistics, correlation coefficient (Spearman 
correlation), Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Shapiro-Wilk 
test, and Mann-Whitney U-test. 
Results
A comparison of the average values of scores for 
individual statements (Table 1) shows that, on average, 
respondents neither agreed nor disagreed or agreed to 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of satisfaction with interprofessional collaboration
Statement Me s KA KS Min Max
'We' have a good understanding with 'them' about our 
respective responsibilities.
2.89 3 0.63 −0.61 1.20 1 4
'They' are usually willing to take into account 'our' 
availability when organising their work.
2.68 3 0.71 −0.57 0.29 1 4
I feel that patient treatment and care are not 
adequately discussed between 'us' and 'them'.*
2.39 2 0.72 −0.11 −0.36 1 4
'We' and 'they' share similar ideas about how to treat 
patients.
2.72 3 0.55 −0.49 0.25 1 4
'They' are willing to discuss 'our' work issues. 2.57 3 0.73 −0.39 −0.13 1 4
'They' cooperate with the way 'we' organise care. 2.45 3 0.78 −0.15 −0.45 1 4
'They' would be willing to cooperate with new 
practices related to 'our' work.
2.66 3 0.69 −0.44 0.16 1 4
'They' do not usually ask for 'our' opinion.* 2.63 3 0.71 −0.35 −0.02 1 4
'They' anticipate when 'we' will need their help. 2.47 2 0.72 0.04 −0.25 1 4
Important information is always passed on from 'us' 
to 'them'.
2.94 3 0.67 −0.18 −0.10 1 4
Disagreements with 'them' often remain unresolved.* 2.44 2 0.67 −0.26 −0.31 1 4
'They' think their work is more important than 'ours'. 2.27 2 0.84 −0.20 −0.97 1 4
'They' would not be willing to discuss their new 
practices with 'us'.*
2.62 3 0.63 −0.62 0.24 1 4
Total 2.60 2.62 0.41 −0.21 −0.08 1.38 3.85
Legend: * – reverse coding;  – average; Me – median; s – standard deviation; KA – skewness; KS – kurtosis; Min – minimum; Max – maximum
12 Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
some extent with the statements measuring satisfaction 
with interprofessional collaboration (  = 2.60, s = 
0.41) and (Me = 2.62). Most respondents agreed most 
strongly with the statements “Important information 
is always passed on from 'us' to 'them'” and “'We' have 
a good understanding with 'them' about our respective 
responsibilities”, and agreed least with the statements 
“'They' think that their work is more important than 
'ours'” and “I feel that patient treatment and care are 
not adequately discussed between 'us' and 'them'”.
On average, the level of satisfaction with 
interprofessional collaboration between doctors and 
nurses was rated higher by doctors than by nurses, 
with the exception of the statement “Important 
information is always passed on from 'us' to 'them'”. 
When we compare the perceptions of doctors 
and other healthcare professionals, we find that 
comparable to the attitude of doctors and nurses, 
satisfaction scores were higher for collaboration of 
doctors with other healthcare professionals than vice 
versa. Again, the only difference was observed in the 
statement “Important information is always passed on 
from 'us' to 'them'”. When we compare the perceptions 
of collaboration between nurses and other healthcare 
professionals, we find that the levels of satisfaction 
with interprofessional collaboration are quite similar 
in these two groups. On average, satisfaction with 
interprofessional collaboration was rated highest 
by doctors for their collaboration with nurses (  = 
3.03, s = 0.26), followed by doctors' satisfaction with 
collaboration with other healthcare professionals (  = 
2.86, s = 0.22). Nurses expressed the lowest levels of 
satisfaction with their collaboration with doctors (  = 
2.36, s = 0.42).
In terms of the age groups of respondents, the 
youngest group (up to 30 years of age) ( = 2.67, s = 
0.42) rated their satisfaction with interprofessional 
collaboration highest, followed by the age group of 41 
years and older ( = 2.59, s = 0.38) and the age group 
between 31 and 40 years ( = 2.54, s = 0.42). In terms 
of the length of service, respondents with the least 
work experience (up to 10 years) ( = 2.63, s = 0.43) 
and respondents with the most work experience (21 
years or more) expressed the highest satisfaction with 
interprofessional collaboration ( = 2.63, s = 0.37). On 
average, the group with between 11 and 20 years of 
service was the least satisfied ( = 2.52, s = 0.40). 
For each of the two correlations, we used the 
Mann-Whitney U-test to test whether the differences 
in the mean values for each statement were also 
statistically significant (Table 2). Based on the results 
of the comparison between doctors' ratings of their 
Table 2: Comparative analysis of relations 
Statement
ZM-MZ DZ-ZD MD-DM
U-test p U-test p U-test p
'We' have a good understanding with 'them' about our 
respective responsibilities.
1260.0 < 0.001 362.5 0.585 2034.0 0.626
'They' are usually willing to take into account 'our' 
availability when organising their work.
837.5 < 0.001 291.5 0.030 1978.0 0.439
I feel that patient treatment and care are not adequately 
discussed between 'us' and 'them'.*
1219.0 0.001 234.0 0.004 2073.0 0.798
'We' and 'they' share similar ideas about how to treat 
patients.
1473.0 0.014 378.0 0.749 2124.0 0.970
'They' are willing to discuss 'our' work issues. 848.5 < 0.001 275.0 0.018 1692.5 0.047
'They' cooperate with the way 'we' organise care. 422.0 < 0.001 247.5 0.005 1651.5 0.033
'They' would be willing to cooperate with new practices 
related to 'our' work.
797.0 < 0.001 331.0 0.201 1836.5 0.152
'They' do not usually ask for 'our' opinion.* 653.0 < 0.001 226.5 0.002 1855.0 0.197
'They' anticipate when 'we' will need their help. 669.0 < 0.001 208.5 0.001 2100.0 0.889
Important information is always passed on from 'us' to 
'them'.
1295.5 0.003 378.0 0.794 1657.5 0.029
Disagreements with 'them' often remain unresolved.* 1607.0 0.087 297.0 0.079 1873.0 0.245
'They' think their work is more important than 'ours.' 336.0 < 0.001 220.0 0.001 1725.0 0.065
'They' would not be willing to discuss their new practices 
with 'us'.*
1265.0 0.001 278.0 0.011 1763.5 0.087
Total 298.0 < 0.001 183.0 0.001 1995.5 0.586
Legend: * – reverse coding; U-test – Mann-Whitney U-test; p – statistical significance; ZM-MZ – comparison of assessment between 
doctors with nurses - nurses and doctors; DZ-ZD – comparison of assessment between other healthcare professionals with doctors - 
doctors with other healthcare professionals; MD-DM – comparison of assessment between nurses with other healthcare professionals 
- other healthcare professionals with nurses
13Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
collaboration with nurses and nurses' ratings of 
their collaboration with doctors, we found that 
the differences were statistically significant for all 
statements except for the statement “Disagreements 
with 'them' often remain unresolved”. A comparison 
of healthcare professionals' satisfaction ratings 
regarding their collaboration with doctors and 
doctors' satisfaction ratings regarding their 
collaboration with other healthcare professionals 
also revealed many statistically significant differences 
between the groups. The lowest number of statistically 
significant differences was identified between nurses' 
satisfaction ratings regarding their collaboration with 
other healthcare professionals and vice versa. When 
we compare the mean scores for satisfaction with 
collaboration between individual groups, we find 
that the differences in mean scores for doctor-nurse 
and nurse-doctor collaboration and physician-other 
healthcare professionals (and vice versa) collaboration 
are statistically significant. This shows a statistically 
significant difference in the mean values of mutual 
satisfaction regarding collaboration between doctors 
and nurses. This also applies to the mean values of 
mutual satisfaction regarding collaboration between 
doctors and other healthcare professionals.
We found no statistically significant differences 
between the different age groups. However, we did find 
statistically significant differences between groups of 
different years of service. The comparison of groups 
with a length of service of up to 10 years and between 
11 years and 20 years showed statistically significant 
differences in satisfaction with interprofessional 
collaboration. The group with up to 10 years of service 
was on average more satisfied than the group with 
between 11 and 20 years of service. There was also a 
statistically significant difference between the groups 
with 11 to 20 years of service and 21 or more years 
of service. Those with more work experience were 
on average more satisfied with interprofessional 
collaboration. 
We also found statistically significant differences 
in satisfaction with interprofessional collaboration 
between the groups depending on the working hours. 
The group with the most working hours per week 
(  = 2.67, s = 0.45) was the group that was also most 
satisfied with interprofessional collaboration, while 
the group with 41 to 50 working hours per week was 
the least satisfied (  = 2.51, s = 0.42). On average, 
doctors reported working 49.2 hours per week, nurses 
45.2 hours per week and other healthcare professionals 
40.8 hours per week. The respondents with the highest 
number of working hours per week were on average 
more satisfied with interprofessional collaboration 
in all statements. The difference between the group 
averages also proved to be statistically significant. 
Table 3 shows that there are statistically significant 
differences in the level of satisfaction with 
interprofessional collaboration between the primary 
Table 3: Average level of satisfaction with interprofessional collaboration by level of healthcare provision
Statement
Level of healthcare
Primary Secondary Tertiary Social care 
institutions
 (s)  (s)  (s)  (s)
'We' have a good understanding with 'them' about our 
respective responsibilities.
2.99 (0.52) 2.89 (0.67) 2.90 (0.67) 2.69 (0.56)
'They' are usually willing to take into account 'our' availability 
when organising their work.
2.76 (0.72) 2.68 (0.60) 2.63 (0.80) 2.76 (0.62)
I feel that patient treatment and care are not adequately 
discussed between 'us' and 'them'.*
2.56 (0.78) 2.45 (0.69) 2.24 (0.73) 2.43 (0.63)
'We' and 'they' share similar ideas about how to treat patients. 2.79 (0.47) 2.76 (0.51) 2.67 (0.62) 2.69 (0.52)
'They' are willing to discuss 'our' work issues. 2.74 (0.65) 2.55 (0.64) 2.55 (0.81) 2.40 (0.73)
'They' cooperate with the way 'we' organise care. 2.48 (0.67) 2.53 (0.72) 2.40 (0.88) 2.36 (0.79)
'They' would be willing to cooperate with new practices related 
to 'our' work.
2.70 (0.66) 2.64 (0.62) 2.67 (0.75) 2.57 (0.70)
'They' do not usually ask for 'our' opinion.* 2.74 (0.65) 2.48 (0.70) 2.72 (0.74) 2.60 (0.70)
'They' anticipate when 'we' will need their help. 2.59 (0.61) 2.40 (0.74) 2.47 (0.76) 2.43 (0.70)
Important information is always passed on from 'us' to 'them'. 3.01 (0.72) 2.98 (0.65) 2.92 (0.68) 2.81 (0.59)
Disagreements with 'them' often remain unresolved.* 2.66 (0.73) 2.36 (0.65) 2.35 (0.68) 2.57 (0.50)
'They' think their work is more important than 'ours.' 2.38 (0.80) 2.29 (0.81) 2.21 (0.91) 2.29 (0.74)
'They' would not be willing to discuss their new practices with 
'us'.*
2.76 (0.62) 2.53 (0.60) 2.65 (0.67) 2.52 (0.55)
Total 2.70 (0.40) 2.58 (0.37) 2.57 (0.45) 2.55 (0.38)
Legend: * – reverse coding;  – average; s – standard deviation 
14 Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
and secondary and between the primary and tertiary 
levels of healthcare.
On average, respondents working at the primary 
level of healthcare were most satisfied with 
interprofessional collaboration (  = 2.70, s = 0.40), 
followed by those at the secondary (  = 2.58, s = 0.37) 
and tertiary levels (  = 2.57, s = 0.45) and social care 
institutions (  = 2.55, s = 0.38). 
Discussion
The results of our study show that, on average, 
interprofessional collaboration was rated most 
positively by doctors and least positively by nurses. 
Hierarchical relationships, which still characterise 
the collaboration between nursing and medical 
staff, often result in poor communication as well 
as unresolved conflicts within the professional 
groups (Foth, Block, Stamer, & Schmacke, 2015). 
Despite the fact that doctors are still at the top of 
the hierarchy scale, successful collaboration within 
teams requires the development of profession-based 
identity of all team members (Romijn, Teunissen, de 
Bruijne, Wagner, & de Groot, 2016). Using the ICS, 
a similar study was conducted in Italy, which found 
a rather heterogeneous assessment of collaboration 
between different healthcare profiles. Similar to our 
study, nurses rated their working relationship with 
doctors relatively negatively, but still described the 
collaboration as positive (Wieser et al., 2019). This 
paradox, which is often observed when studying the 
relationship between doctors and nurses, is nothing 
new. Therefore, more emphasis should be placed 
on strategies directed towards reducing this gap in 
collaboration, i.e., strategies which would aim to 
promote equality between the two professional groups 
and strengthen the weaker group in the relationship 
(Huq, Reay, & Chreim, 2017).
In terms of the length of service, many studies 
seem to agree that, on average, those with the most 
work experience and those at the beginning of their 
careers are the most satisfied with interprofessional 
collaboration (Ilić et al., 2017; Serrano-Gemes et al., 
2017). Similar results were also obtained in our study, 
which showed statistically significant differences 
between the groups with different years of service.
Our comparison between the length of working 
hours and perception of interprofessional collaboration 
also revealed statistically significant differences. One 
possible reason why the group with the longest working 
hours rated interprofessional collaboration most 
positively is that this group mainly included doctors, 
who were also most satisfied with collaboration with 
the other two groups of healthcare professionals. 
Comparable results were also obtained in the study 
by Bowles et al. (2016), who examined potential 
factors influencing perceptions of interprofessional 
collaboration at the individual and organisational 
levels, and found both the length of working hours 
and increased workload to be positively associated 
with higher interprofessional collaboration scores 
across all professional groups of respondents.
The level of healthcare provision was also found 
to be an important factor, as on average, healthcare 
professionals at the primary level of healthcare 
were the most satisfied with interprofessional 
collaboration, while, as expected, those working in 
social care settings reported the lowest satisfaction 
with interprofessional collaboration. Similar results 
are also reported in a study by Pullon et al. (2016), 
who report that outpatient staff at the primary level of 
healthcare are more likely to recognise the benefits of 
interprofessional collaboration, as smaller and long-
standing interdisciplinary teams tend to be formed in 
this setting, resulting in higher levels of confidence. 
Conversely, a study by Brečko (2018) reports higher 
levels of dissatisfaction with interprofessional 
collaboration in social care settings. The author 
notes that healthcare professionals' satisfaction 
with interprofessional collaboration at this level of 
healthcare can only be improved by measures aimed 
at improving care through a clear management vision. 
As for the limitations of our study, we must note 
the random sample and the subjectivity of the ICS, 
as it is based on respondents' self-assessment of the 
relationship and collaboration between healthcare 
professionals. When interpreting the results, we also 
had to take into account the fact that the survey 
included a relatively small sample of different 
professional groups, as well as the fact that the 
composition of individual interdisciplinary teams 
often varies from one institution to another.
The results and findings of our study can form 
the basis for further research on interprofessional 
collaboration in interdisciplinary teams, as the 
relationships between different healthcare professions 
are also crucial for the professional development 
and professionalisation of nursing care. Creation 
of a high quality, equal and respectful relationship 
between different professional groups is an important 
element of the concept of professionalisation, and can 
only be achieved through an in-depth exploration 
of all components needed by both individuals and 
professional groups. 
Differences in the perceptions and attitudes of 
healthcare professionals towards interdisciplinary 
collaboration show that it is necessary to make certain 
changes in formal education with regard to the topic 
of interprofessional collaboration, as interprofessional 
education that promotes the development of profession-
based roles leads to better collaboration between 
healthcare professionals in nursing practice. A joint 
interdisciplinary curriculum which would include 
all students from different fields of health education 
should therefore be considered for the future. Such early 
socialisation in terms of quality collaboration would 
15Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
facilitate and, most importantly, improve the culture of 
professional collaboration in healthcare. Further research 
is also needed in the field of psychometric validation 
of the questionnaire and its further adaptation to the 
cultural context of the health system in Slovenia. 
Conclusion
The structure of healthcare teams has changed in 
recent years, and the growing demands and needs for 
holistic patient care also call for better synergy and 
collaboration between different healthcare services. 
The results of our study show that satisfaction with 
collaboration between healthcare professionals 
in the Slovenian cultural sphere still leaves much 
room for improvement. Nevertheless, individual 
parts of the study show that healthcare professionals 
are increasingly aware of the importance of a 
collective team identity and consequently of effective 
interprofessional collaboration.
Slovenian translation/Prevod v slovenščino
Uvod
Popolnost v sodelovanju je pojem, ki ga je skoraj 
nemogoče doseči, saj med zdravstvenimi delavci 
pogosto obstaja razlika v drugačnem pogledu na to, kako 
zagotoviti najboljšo zdravstveno oskrbo pacientov (Schot, 
Tummers, & Noordegraaf, 2019). Pomanjkanje znanja 
in strah pred izgubo avtonomije posameznika lahko 
povzroči nastajanje obrambnih mehanizmov za dobro 
medpoklicno sodelovanje; obširno strokovno znanje o 
lastni stroki in upoštevanje inovativnosti drugih strok pa 
vsekakor izboljša možnost enakovrednega sodelovanja 
(Reeves, Pelone, Harrison, Goldman, & Zwarenstein, 
2017). Večina avtorjev medpoklicno sodelovanje 
opredeljuje podobno: gre za nadgradnjo tradicionalnega 
timskega načina zdravstvene obravnave pacientov 
(Kendall-Gallagher, Reeves, Alexanian, & Kitto, 2017), 
ki vključuje sodelovanje dveh ali več strokovnjakov 
različnih področij zdravstva s ciljem doseganja najboljših 
izidov zdravljenja (Serrano-Gemes & Rich-Ruiz, 2017). 
Omenjeni cilj bomo torej osvojili le, če v sodelovanje 
hkrati vključimo vse zdravstvene izvajalce in sodelavce, 
ki sodelujejo pri obravnavi pacienta (Ciemins, Brant, 
Kersten, Mullette, & Dickerson, 2016; Schot et al. 2019), 
in skupaj stremeli k t. i. komunicirajočim profesionalnim 
timom, ki omogočajo optimalne interdisciplinarne 
relacije pri sodelovanju. 
Dobra interakcija med zdravstvenimi delavci prispeva 
pomembne prednosti na področju sodelovanja in 
posledično izravna morebitne pomanjkljivosti v naših 
odnosih (Pullon, Morgan, Macdonald, McKinlay, & Gray, 
2016). Spodbujanje sodelovanja in spoštovanje vrednot 
(tako poklicnih kot tudi osebnostnih) vseh zaposlenih 
sta vsekakor aktivnosti, ki vplivata na boljše sodelovanje 
(Veingerl Čič, 2017). V praksi je medpoklicnega 
sodelovanja še vedno premalo, saj zdravstveni delavci 
prepogosto delujejo kot posamezniki (Vestergaard & 
Nørgaard, 2018). Prav tako ima pristransko gledano v 
odnosu do preostalih sodelavcev zdravniška dominanca 
še vedno profesionalno moč v odnosu (Wieser et al., 
2019), saj so zadnje omenjeni tradicionalno vajeni 
dominantnih vlog, prav takšno doživljanje pripadnikov 
drugih poklicev pa povzroča ovire pri sodelovanju in 
onemogoča spremembo pogleda na obstoječa razmerja 
(Bowles et al., 2016). Zaradi omenjenega pogleda 
moramo zdravstvene delavce že v času formalnega 
izobraževanja usmeriti k temu, da skozi svoje praktične 
izkušnje spremenijo stereotipna predvidevanja, ki lahko 
pozneje implicirajo negativne rezultate sodelovanja 
(Foster & Macleod Clark, 2015). 
Dozdajšnje raziskave medpoklicnega sodelovanja 
v Sloveniji kažejo, da še vedno največ raziskovanja 
namenjamo proučevanju dveh najpogostejših profilov 
v zdravstvu (Strauss, Goriup, Križmarić, & Koželj, 
2018; Rojko, 2019), raziskovanje pa je le redko 
usmerjeno k sodelovanju v širšem zdravstvenemu 
timu (Korenčan, 2020). 
Namen in cilji 
Namen raziskave je bil identificirati ključne 
komponente in izide dobrega medpoklicnega 
sodelovanja ter s ciljem ugotoviti, kako medpoklicno 
sodelovanje ocenjujejo zdravstveni sodelavci, ki 
so del interdisciplinarnih timov. Hkrati smo tudi 
proučevali povezanost in preplet socialno-demografskih 
spremenljivk, kot tudi nekaterih značilnosti delovnega 
procesa ter njihov vpliv na stopnjo zadovoljstva v 
medpoklicnem sodelovanju. 
Postavili smo naslednje hipoteze: 
H1: Med medicinskimi sestrami, zdravniki in 
drugimi zdravstvenimi delavci obstajajo statistično 
značilne razlike, ki opredeljujejo stopnjo zadovoljstva 
z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem.
H2: V percepciji medpoklicnega sodelovanja glede 
na starost, delovne izkušnje zdravstvenih delavcev 
ter med dolžino delovnega časa obstajajo statistično 
značilne razlike.
H3: Med posameznimi organizacijami zdravstvene 
dejavnosti (primarna, sekundarna, terciarna 
raven zdravstvene dejavnosti in socialnovarstveni 
zavodi) in stopnjo zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem ne obstajajo statistično pomembne 
razlike.
Metode
Za raziskavo je bil uporabljen kvantitativni 
neeksperimentalni opisni raziskovalni dizajn. Podatki 
so bili zbrani z anektiranjem.
16 Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
Opis instrumenta
Anketo smo izvedli z vprašalnikom o medpoklicnem 
sodelovanju (ang. Interprofessional Collaboration Scale – 
ICS) (Kenaszchuk, Reeves, Nicholas, & Zwarenstein, 
2010), ki je namenjen oceni medpoklicnega 
sodelovanja med medicinskimi sestrami, zdravniki 
in drugimi zdravstvenimi delavci in je pogosto 
uporabljen vprašalnik v raziskavah po svetu (Bowles 
et al., 2016; Romijn, Teunissen, de Bruijne, Wagner, 
& de Groot, 2016; Halbert, 2017;  Wieser et al., 2019). 
Vprašalnik je prosto dostopen na spletu. Po izvedeni 
pilotni študiji, ki je potrdila vsebinsko razumljivost 
in jasnost, smo izračunali preliminarno notranjo 
zanesljivost (Cronbachov koeficient α) vprašalnika, ki 
je znašala 0,73. 
Vprašalnik je vključeval tudi socialno-demografske 
podatke (spol, starost, stopnja izobrazbe, delovna 
doba) in druge podatke v povezavi z značilnostmi 
dela na različnih ravneh zdravstvene dejavnosti 
(povprečno skupno število ur, ki jih zaposleni preživijo 
na delovnem mestu). Vprašalnik ICS je sestavljen iz 
26-ih trditev, v katerih so medicinske sestre ocenile 
svoje delovne odnose z zdravniki in drugimi izvajalci 
zdravstvene oskrbe (fizioterapevti, delovni terapevti, 
magistri farmacije) in obratno. Anketiranci so se za 
oceno trditev opredelili s štiristopenjsko Likertovo 
lestvico, na kateri je pomenila 1, da se s podano 
trditvijo »sploh ne strinjajo«, 4 pa je pomenila, da 
se s podano trditvijo »popolnoma strinjajo«. Test 
zanesljivosti anketnega vprašalnika tudi na končnem 
vzorcu vseh uporabnih respondentov je pokazal, da 
je vprašalnik zelo zanesljiv, saj je koeficient Cronbach 
alfa pokazal 0,841.
Opis vzorca
Uporabljen je bil priložnostni vzorec zaposlenih v 
zdravstvu. v katerem je sodelovalo 203 zdravstvenih 
delavcev. Večina jih je ženskega spola (n = 154, 75,9 %), 
v povprečju starih 35,9 let (s = 8,94). Glede na poklic 
jih je bilo največ medicinskih sester – srednješolska 
in visokošolska izobrazba (n = 147, 72,4 %), sledila je 
skupina drugih zdravstvenih delavcev: fizioterapevti, 
delovni terapevti in magistri farmacije (n = 29, 14,3 %) 
in skupina zdravnikov (n = 27, 13,3 %). Glede na 
raven zdravstvene dejavnosti so anketiranci zaposleni 
na primarnem (n = 40, 19,7 %), sekundarnem (n = 
64, 31,5 %) in terciarnem nivoju (n = 78, 38,4 %) ter 
v socialnovarstvenih zavodih (n = 21, 10,3 %). Vsa 
delovna doba (povprečje je izračunano iz razvrščenih 
podatkov v pet skupin po številu let delovnih izkušenj) 
se v povprečju giblje med 13,0 let (s = 0,92), v povprečju 
delajo 45,1 ure (s = 6,91) na teden.
Tabela 1: Opisne statistike zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem  
Trditev Me s KA KS Min Maks
»Mi« imamo z »njimi« dogovorjene skupne 
odgovornosti.
2,89 3 0,63 −0,61 1,20 1 4
»Oni« so pri organizaciji svojega dela običajno 
pripravljeni upoštevati »našo« razpoložljivost.
2,68 3 0,71 −0,57 0,29 1 4
Menim, da »mi« in »oni« ne govorimo dovolj o 
zdravljenju in zdravstveni negi pacientov.*
2,39 2 0,72 −0,11 −0,36 1 4
»Mi« in »oni« delimo podoben pogled o zdravljenju 
pacientov.
2,72 3 0,55 −0,49 0,25 1 4
»Oni« so se pripravljeni pogovarjati o temah, 
povezanih z »našim« delom.
2,57 3 0,73 −0,39 −0,13 1 4
»Oni« sodelujejo pri organizaciji »naše« zdravstvene 
nege.
2,45 3 0,78 −0,15 −0,45 1 4
»Oni« bi bili pripravljeni sodelovati pri novih načinih 
»našega« dela.
2,66 3 0,69 −0,44 0,16 1 4
»Oni« »nas« običajno ne vprašajo za mnenje.* 2,63 3 0,71 −0,35 −0,02 1 4
»Oni« lahko predvidijo, kdaj »mi« potrebujemo 
njihovo pomoč.
2,47 2 0,72 0,04 −0,25 1 4
Pomembne informacije se vedno prenesejo od »nas« 
do »njih«.
2,94 3 0,67 −0,18 −0,10 1 4
Nesoglasja z »njimi« pogosto ostanejo nerazrešena.* 2,44 2 0,67 −0,26 −0,31 1 4
»Oni« menijo, da je njihovo delo pomembnejše od 
»našega«.*
2,27 2 0,84 −0,20 −0,97 1 4
»Oni« se z »nami« niso pripravljeni pogovarjati o 
novih načinih dela v zdravstveni negi.*
2,62 3 0,63 −0,62 0,24 1 4
Celoten vprašalnik 2,60 2,62 0,41 −0,21 −0,08 1,38 3,85
Legenda: * – odgovori obratno kodirani;  − povprečje; Me – mediana; s – standardni odklon; KA – koeficient asimetrije; KS – 
koeficient sploščenosti; Min – minumum; Maks – maksimum
17Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
Opis poteka raziskave in obdelave podatkov
Vprašalnik smo izvajalcem zdravstvene oskrbe 
zaposlenim na različnih ravneh zdravstvene dejavnosti 
posredovali po elektronski pošti. Sodelovanje v 
raziskavi je bilo prostovoljno in anonimno. Spletni 
vprašalnik, ki mu je bilo dodano pojasnilo o namenu 
in načinu izpolnjevanja, je bilo mogoče izpolniti v 
odprtokodni aplikaciji za spletno anketiranje 1KA 
od 14. oktobra 2020 do 4. novembra 2020. Podatki, 
ki so jih anketiranci posredovali z odgovarjanjem na 
vprašanja, so se zbrali v bazi podatkov na spletnem 
strežniku. V procesu zbiranja podatkov se je ustvarila 
podatkovna baza z odgovori anketirancev brez 
njihovih imen in priimkov ter elektronskih naslovov, s 
čimer je bila zagotovljena anonimnost. 
Pridobljene empirične podatke smo obdelali s 
statističnim programom IBM SPSS, verzija 22 (SPSS 
Inc., Chicago, IL, ZDA). Z uporabo navedenega 
programa so bile opravljene naslednje statistične 
analize in testi: izračun opisnih statistik, korelacijski 
koeficient (Spermanova korelacija), Kolmogorov-
Smirnov test, Shapiro-Wilkov test in Mann-
Whitneyjev U-test. V članku uporabljena izraza 
»medicinske sestre« in »zdravniki« veljata za nevtralni 
izraz tako za moški kot za ženski spol.
Rezultati
Primerjava povprečnih vrednosti ocen posameznih 
trditev (Tabela 1) je pokazala, da so anketiranci 
do trditev, s katerimi merimo zadovoljstvo z 
medpoklicnim sodelovanjem, v povprečju nevtralni 
oziroma se delno strinjajo (  = 2,60, s = 0,41) in (Me = 
2,62). Najbolj se strinjajo s trditvama »Pomembne 
informacije se vedno prenesejo od "nas" do "njih"« 
in »Mi« imamo z "njimi" dogovorjene skupne 
odgovornosti«, najmanj pa s trditvama »"Oni" menijo, 
da je njihovo delo pomembnejše od "našega"« in 
»Menim, da »mi« in »oni« ne govorimo dovolj o 
zdravljenju in zdravstveni negi pacientov«.
Povprečne stopnje zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem so večje v relaciji zdravnikov do 
medicinskih sester kot obratno, razen pri trditvi 
»Pomembne informacije se vedno prenesejo od "nas" 
do "njih"«. Pri primerjavi odnosa zdravnikov in drugih 
Tabela 2: Analiza primerjave povprečij med relacijami 
Trditev
ZM-MZ DZ-ZD MD-DM
U-test p U-test p U-test p
»Mi« imamo z »njimi« dogovorjene skupne 
odgovornosti.
1260,0 < 0,001 362,5 0,585 2034,0 0,626
»Oni« so pri organizaciji svojega dela običajno 
pripravljeni upoštevati »našo« razpoložljivost.
837,5 < 0,001 291,5 0,030 1978,0 0,439
Menim, da »mi« in »oni« ne govorimo dovolj o 
zdravljenju in zdravstveni negi pacientov.*
1219,0 0,001 234,0 0,004 2073,0 0,798
»Mi« in »oni« delimo podoben pogled o 
zdravljenju pacientov.
1473,0 0,014 378,0 0,749 2124,0 0,970
»Oni« so se pripravljeni pogovarjati o temah, 
povezanih z »našim« delom.
848,5 < 0,001 275,0 0,018 1692,5 0,047
»Oni« sodelujejo pri organizaciji »naše« 
zdravstvene nege.
422,0 < 0,001 247,5 0,005 1651,5 0,033
»Oni« bi bili pripravljeni sodelovati pri novih 
načinih »našega« dela.
797,0 < 0,001 331,0 0,201 1836,5 0,152
»Oni« »nas« običajno ne vprašajo za mnenje.* 653,0 < 0,001 226,5 0,002 1855,0 0,197
»Oni« lahko predvidijo, kdaj »mi« potrebujemo 
njihovo pomoč.
669,0 < 0,001 208,5 0,001 2100,0 0,889
Pomembne informacije se vedno prenesejo od 
»nas« do »njih«.
1295,5 0,003 378,0 0,794 1657,5 0,029
Nesoglasja z »njimi« pogosto ostanejo 
nerazrešena.*
1607,0 0,087 297,0 0,079 1873,0 0,245
»Oni« menijo, da je njihovo delo pomembnejše od 
»našega«.*
336,0 < 0,001 220,0 0,001 1725,0 0,065
»Oni« se z »nami« niso pripravljeni pogovarjati o 
novih načinih dela v zdravstveni negi.*
1265,0 0,001 278,0 0,011 1763,5 0,087
Celoten vprašalnik 298,0 < 0,001 183,0 0,001 1995,5 0,586
Legenda: * – odgovori obratno kodirani; U-test – Mann-Whitneyjev U-test; p – statistična značilnost; ZM-MZ − primerjava ocen 
skupin zdravnikov z medicinskimi sestrami – medicinske sestre z zdravniki; DZ-ZD − primerjava ocen skupin drugih zdravstvenih 
delavcev z zdravniki ter zdravnikov z drugimi zdravstvenimi delavci; MD-DM − primerjava ocen skupin medicinskih sester z drugimi 
zdravstvenimi delavci ter drugih zdravstvenih delavcev z medicinskimi sestrami
18 Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
zdravstvenih delavcev ugotavljamo, da so, podobno 
kot pri odnosu zdravnikov z medicinskimi sestrami, 
stopnje zadovoljstva večje v relaciji zdravnikov do drugih 
zdravstvenih delavcev kot obratno. Ponovno se pojavi 
razlika le pri trditvi »Pomembne informacije se vedno 
prenesejo od " nas" do "njih"«. Pri primerjavi odnosa med 
medicinskimi sestrami in drugimi zdravstvenimi delavci 
ugotavljamo, da je stopnja zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem med tema dvema skupinama dokaj 
podobna. V povprečju so najbolj zadovoljni zdravniki z 
njihovim sodelovanjem z medicinskimi sestrami (  = 3,03, 
s = 0,26), čemur sledi zadovoljstvo zdravnikov z njihovim 
sodelovanjem z drugimi zdravstvenimi delavci (  = 
2,86, s = 0,22). Najmanj zadovoljne so medicinske sestre 
z njihovim sodelovanjem z zdravniki (  = 2,36, s = 0,42).
Med starostnimi skupinami anketiranih so v 
povprečju najbolj zadovoljni z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem najmlajši (stari do 30 let) (  = 2,67, s = 
0,42), sledi jim skupina, ki ima 41 let in več let (  = 
2,59, s = 0,38), in skupina med 31 let in 40 let (  = 
2,54, s = 0,42). Glede na celotne delovne izkušnje so 
v povprečju najbolj zadovoljni tisti, ki imajo najmanj 
delovnih izkušenj (do 10 let) (  = 2,63, s = 0,43), in tisti, 
ki jih imajo največ (21 let in več let) (  = 2,63, s = 0,37). 
Skupina, ki ima med 11 let in 20 let delovnih izkušenj, 
je v povprečju najmanj zadovoljna (  = 2,52, s = 0,40). 
Za vsaki dve medsebojni relaciji smo z Mann-
Whitneyjevim U-testom preverili, ali sta povprečji 
pri posamezni trditvi tudi statistično značilno različni 
(Tabela 2). Na podlagi rezultatov primerjave ocen 
trditev med oceno stopnje zadovoljstva zdravnikov 
s sodelovanjem z medicinskimi sestrami in oceno 
stopnje zadovoljstva medicinskih sester s sodelovanjem 
z zdravniki smo ugotovili, da so razlike v vseh primerih 
statistično značilne, razen pri trditvi: »Nesoglasja z 
"njimi" pogosto ostanejo nerazrešena.« Primerjava 
ocen stopnje zadovoljstva drugih zdravstvenih delavcev 
z njihovim sodelovanjem z zdravniki in ocene stopnje 
zadovoljstva zdravnikov s sodelovanjem z drugimi 
zdravstvenimi delavci pokaže prav tako veliko statistično 
značilnih razlik med skupinama. Najmanj statistično 
značilnih razlik je pri oceni stopnje zadovoljstva 
medicinskih sester s sodelovanjem z drugimi 
zdravstvenimi delavci in obratno. Če primerjamo 
povprečne stopnje zadovoljstva s sodelovanjem 
med skupinami, ugotovimo, da sta povprečji relacij 
zdravnik–medicinska sestra in obratno; ter zdravnik–
drugi zdravstveni delavci (in obratno) statistično 
značilno različni pri stopnji značilnosti manjši od 
0,05. Povprečni medsebojni stopnji zadovoljstva s 
Tabela 3: Povprečje zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem po ravni organizacije zdravstvene dejavnosti
Trditev
Raven organizacije zdravstvene dejavnosti
Primarna Sekundarna Terciarna Socialnovarstveni 
zavodi
(s) (s) (s) (s)
»Mi« imamo z »njimi« dogovorjene skupne 
odgovornosti.
2,99 (0,52) 2,89 (0,67) 2,90 (0,67) 2,69 (0,56)
»Oni« so pri organizaciji svojega dela običajno 
pripravljeni upoštevati »našo« razpoložljivost.
2,76 (0,72) 2,68 (0,60) 2,63 (0,80) 2,76 (0,62)
Menim, da »mi« in »oni« ne govorimo dovolj o 
zdravljenju in zdravstveni negi pacientov.*
2,56 (0,78) 2,45 (0,69) 2,24 (0,73) 2,43 (0,63)
»Mi« in »oni« delimo podoben pogled o zdravljenju 
pacientov.
2,79 (0,47) 2,76 (0,51) 2,67 (0,62) 2,69 (0,52)
»Oni« so se pripravljeni pogovarjati o temah, 
povezanih z »našim« delom.
2,74 (0,65) 2,55 (0,64) 2,55 (0,81) 2,40 (0,73)
»Oni« sodelujejo pri organizaciji »naše« zdravstvene 
nege.
2,48 (0,67) 2,53 (0,72) 2,40 (0,88) 2,36 (0,79)
»Oni« bi bili pripravljeni sodelovati pri novih 
načinih »našega« dela.
2,70 (0,66) 2,64 (0,62) 2,67 (0,75) 2,57 (0,70)
»Oni« »nas« običajno ne vprašajo za mnenje.* 2,74 (0,65) 2,48 (0,70) 2,72 (0,74) 2,60 (0,70)
»Oni« lahko predvidijo, kdaj »mi« potrebujemo 
njihovo pomoč.
2,59 (0,61) 2,40 (0,74) 2,47 (0,76) 2,43 (0,70)
Pomembne informacije se vedno prenesejo od »nas« 
do »njih«.
3,01 (0,72) 2,98 (0,65) 2,92 (0,68) 2,81 (0,59)
Nesoglasja z »njimi« pogosto ostanejo nerazrešena.* 2,66 (0,73) 2,36 (0,65) 2,35 (0,68) 2,57 (0,50)
»Oni« menijo, da je njihovo delo pomembnejše od 
»našega«.*
2,38 (0,80) 2,29 (0,81) 2,21 (0,91) 2,29 (0,74)
»Oni« se z »nami« niso pripravljeni pogovarjati o 
novih načinih dela v zdravstveni negi.*
2,76 (0,62) 2,53 (0,60) 2,65 (0,67) 2,52 (0,55)
Skupaj 2,70 (0,40) 2,58 (0,37) 2,57 (0,45) 2,55 (0,38)
Legenda: * – odgovori obratno kodirani;  − povprečje; s – standardni odklon 
19Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
sodelovanjem zdravnikov in medicinskih sester sta tako 
statistično značilno različni. To velja tudi za povprečni 
medsebojni stopnji zadovoljstva zdravnikov in drugih 
zdravstvenih delavcev.
Med različnimi starostnimi skupinami nismo 
ugotovili statistično značilnih razlik med različno 
starimi skupinami. Ugotovili pa smo statistično 
značilne razlike med skupinami različnih dolžin in 
delovnih izkušenj. Primerjava skupin z do 10 let in 
med 11 let in 20 let delovnih izkušenj se statistično 
značilno razlikujeta v zadovoljstvu z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem. Skupina, ki ima do 10 let delovnih 
izkušenj, je v povprečju bolj zadovoljna od tiste, ki 
ima med 11 let in 20 let delovnih izkušenj. Prav tako 
obstaja statistično značilna razlika med skupinama z 
od 11 let do 20 let in 21 in več let delovnih izkušenj. 
Tisti z več delovnimi izkušnjami so v povprečju bolj 
zadovoljni z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem. 
Nadalje smo ugotovili, da obstajajo statistično značilne 
razlike v zadovoljstvu z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem 
med skupinami po dolžini delovnega časa. Z 
medpoklicnim sodelovanjem je najbolj zadovoljna 
skupina, ki dela največ ur na teden (  = 2,67, s = 0,45), 
najmanj pa skupina, ki dela med 41 ur in 50 ur na teden 
(  = 2,51, s = 0,42). Zdravniki v povprečju delajo 49,2 
ur na teden, medicinske sestre 45,2 ur na teden in 
drugi zdravstveni delavci 40,8 ur na teden. V vseh teh 
trditvah zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem 
so v povprečju bolj zadovoljni tisti, ki delajo največ 
ur tedensko. Tudi razlika med povprečjema skupin je 
statistično značilna. 
Tabela 3 prikazuje, da obstajajo statistično značilne 
razlike med primarno in sekundarno ter med 
primarno in terciarno ravnjo zdravstvene dejavnosti 
o stopnji zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem.
V povprečju so najbolj zadovoljni z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem na primarni ravni zdravstvene 
dejavnosti (  = 2,70, s = 0,40), sledijo sekundarna (  = 
2,58, s = 0,37) in terciarna raven (  = 2,57, s = 0,45) ter 
socialnovarstveni zavodi (  = 2,55, s = 0,38). 
Diskusija
V izvedeni raziskavi smo ugotovili, da so v povprečju 
z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem najbolj zadovoljni 
zdravniki, najmanj pa medicinske sestre. Hierarhični 
odnosi, ki še naprej zaznamujejo sodelovanje med 
zdravstveno nego in medicino, imajo pogosto za 
posledice slabo komunikacijo, kot tudi nerešene 
konflikte znotraj poklicnih skupin (Foth, Block, 
Stamer, & Schmacke, 2015). Četudi se zdravnike na 
hierarhični lestvici še vedno uvršča najvišje, je za 
uspešno sodelovaje znotraj tima treba graditi poklicno 
identiteto prav vseh članov tima (Romijn, Teunissen, 
de Bruijne, Wagner, & de Groot, 2016). Z uporabo 
ICS je bila v Italiji opravljena podobna raziskava, ki 
je pokazala precej heterogeno oceno sodelovanja med 
različnimi zdravstvenimi profili. Podobno kot v naši 
raziskavi so medicinske sestre bolj ali manj negativno 
ocenile svoj delovni odnos z zdravniki, nasprotno 
pa so kljub temu sodelovanje opisale kot pozitivno 
(Wieser et al., 2019). Paradoks, ki ga pogosto opazimo 
pri opisovanju odnosa med zdravniki in medicinskimi 
sestrami, ni nekaj novega. Večji poudarek je zato treba 
nameniti strategijam, ki bi to razliko v sodelovanju 
zmanjšale, in sicer strategijam spodbujanja enakosti 
obeh poklicnih skupin in krepitvi šibkejše skupine v 
odnosu (Huq, Reay, & Chreim, 2017).
Glede na delovne izkušnje številni avtorji ugotavljajo, 
da so v povprečju z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem 
najbolj zadovoljni tisti, ki imajo največ delovnih 
izkušenj, in tisti, ki so na začetku svoje poklicne poti 
(Ilić et al., 2017; Serrano-Gemes et al., 2017). Tudi v 
naši raziskavi smo dobili primerljive podatke, ki kažejo 
na statistično pomembne razlike med skupinami 
različnih let delovnih izkušenj.
Primerjava med dolžino delovnega časa in stopnjo 
zadovoljstva z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem prav tako 
pokaže, da obstajajo statistično pomembne razlike. 
Morebitni razlog, zakaj so v skupini z najdaljšim 
delovnikom najbolj zadovoljni z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem, je ta, da so v tej skupini zajeti 
večinoma zdravniki, ki so tudi sicer najbolj zadovoljni 
s sodelovanjem z drugima dvema skupinama 
zaposlenih. Primerljive rezultate so pridobili tudi v 
raziskavi Bowles et al. (2016), ki so raziskovali mogoče 
dejavnike, ki na individualni ali organizacijski ravni 
vplivajo k njihovemu dojemanju medpoklicnega 
sodelovanja, in ugotovili, da sta tako dolžina delovnega 
časa kot povečan obseg dela pozitivno povezana z višjo 
oceno sodelovanja pri vseh poklicih respondentov.
Kot pomemben dejavnik se kaže tudi raven 
zdravstvene dejavnosti, pri kateri so v povprečju 
najbolj zadovoljni z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem 
zaposleni na primarnem nivoju zdravstvene dejavnosti, 
medtem ko je v socialnovarstvenih zavodih stopnja 
zadovoljstva pričakovano nižja. Podobne rezultate 
opisujejo tudi Pullon et al. (2016), ki so ugotovili, da 
zaposleni v ambulantni dejavnosti na primarni ravni 
zdravstva boljše prepoznajo prednosti medpoklicnega 
sodelovanja, saj se v tem okolju pogosto oblikujejo 
manjši interdisciplinarni timi, v katerih je zaposlena 
dolgoletna ekipa, v kateri se lažje razvije visoka stopnja 
zaupanja. Brečko (2018) nasprotno v svojih ugotovitvah 
poudari nezadovoljstvo z medpoklicnim sodelovanjem 
v socialnovarstvenih zavodih in poudari, da bo le 
izboljševanje zdravstvene oskrbe in jasna predstava 
vodstva v institucionalnem varstvu starejših vplivala 
k večjemu zadovoljstvu zaposlenih z medpoklicnim 
sodelovanjem tudi na tej ravni zdravstvene dejavnosti. 
Med omejitvami raziskave omenimo priložnostni 
vzorec in subjektivnost ICS, saj ta temelji na 
samooceni odnosa in sodelovanja med zdravstvenimi 
delavci. Pri interpretaciji rezultatov je bilo treba 
upoštevati podatek, da je bil v raziskavo zajet relativno 
majhen vzorec različnih poklicnih skupin, kot tudi 
20 Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
dejstvo, da je sestava posameznih interdisciplinarnih 
timov pogosto različna v vsaki instituciji, zato bi 
posploševanje rezultatov raziskave lahko vodilo k 
prevelikemu posploševanju.
Rezultati in ugotovitve naše raziskave so lahko 
podlaga nadaljnjemu raziskovanju medpoklicnega 
sodelovanja znotraj interdisciplinarnih timov, 
saj so tudi odnosi med različnimi zdravstvenimi 
poklici ključnega pomena za strokovni razvoj in 
profesionalizacijo zdravstvene nege. Pomemben 
odnosni element koncepta profesionalizacije je 
namreč vzpostavitev kakovostnega, enakovrednega in 
spoštljivega odnosa znotraj različnih poklicnih skupin, 
za doseganje takega cilja pa je nujno poglobljeno 
raziskovanje vseh komponent, ki jih tako posameznik 
kot tudi posamezne poklicne skupine potrebujejo za 
osvojitev tega cilja. 
Različni pogledi in odnos zdravstvenih delavcev 
na interdisciplinarno sodelovanje kažejo potrebo po 
preoblikovanju formalnega izobraževanja na temo 
medpoklicnega sodelovanja, saj se vpliv medpoklicnega 
izobraževanja pozitivno kaže pri sodelovanju 
zdravstvenih sodelavcev v praksi, saj se lažje prepoznajo 
različne vloge sodelujočih (Kamenšek, Kavčič, & 
Domanjko, 2020). V prihodnje bi bilo zato treba razmisliti 
o skupnem interdisciplinarno oblikovanem učnem 
programu, v katerega bi bilo treba vključiti vse študente 
različnih zdravstvenih področij smeri izobraževanja. Ti 
bi prav zaradi zgodnje socializacije v pomenu dobrega 
medsebojnega sodelovanja tudi v poklicnem okolju s 
sodelavci skupaj lažje, predvsem pa boljše nadgrajevali 
kulturo sodelovanja. Nadaljnje raziskave so tudi potrebne 
na področju psihometrične validacije vprašalnika in 
nadaljnjega prilagajanja kulturnemu kontekstu načina 
dela v zdravstvenem sistemu v Sloveniji. 
Zaključek
Struktura zdravstvenih timov se je v zadnjih letih 
spremenila, vedno večje zahteve in potrebe po celostni 
obravnavi pacienta pa zahtevajo tudi boljše sodelovanje 
in integracijo storitev. V članku smo ugotovili, da se 
v našem kulturnem prostoru še vedno opaža veliko 
nezadovoljstva v sodelovanju z zdravstvenim osebjem. 
Kljub temu pa posamezni deli raziskave kažejo, da 
se pomena kolektivne identitete tima in posledično 
dobrega medpoklicnega sodelovanja zaveda vse več 
zdravstvenih delavcev.
Conflict of interest/Nasprotje interesov
The authors declare that no conflicts of interest 
exist./Avtorja izjavljata, da ni nasprotja interesov.
Funding/Financiranje
The study received no funding./Raziskava ni bila 
finančno podprta.
Ethical approval/Etika raziskovanja
The research was conducted in accordance with the 
principles of the Helsinki-Tokyo Declaration (World 
Medical Association, 2013) and the Code of Ethics in 
Nursing and Care of Slovenia (2014). The research was 
approved by the Scientific Committee of the Faculty of 
Health Sciences, University of Primorska./Raziskava 
je bila izvedena v skladu z načeli Helsinško-tokijske 
deklaracije (World Medical Association, 2013) in 
Kodeksom etike v zdravstveni negi in oskrbi Slovenije 
(2014). Raziskavo je odobrila Komisija za znanstveno-
raziskovalno delo Fakultete za vede o zdravju Univerze 
na Primorskem.
Author contributions/Prispevek avtorjev
The authors jointly conceptualised the study design, 
and the study was conducted by the first author. The 
co-author participated in the development of the 
questionnaire and interpretation of the findings. Both 
authors were equally involved in writing the article./
Avtorja sta konceptualno skupaj zastavila raziskavo, 
ki jo je izvedla prva avtorica. Soavtor je sodeloval pri 
snovanju instrumentaraija in interpretaciji ugotovitev. 
Pri pisanju članka sta avtorja sodelovala enakovredno.
References
Bowles, D., McIntosh, G., Hemrajani, R., Yen, M. S., Phillips, A., 
Schwartz, N., ... Dow, A. W. (2016). Nurse-physician collaboration 
in an academic medical centre: The influence of organisational and 
individual factors. Journal of Interprofesional Care, 30(5), 655–660.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1201464 
PMid:27388560
Brečko, B. (2018). Zadovoljstvo stanovalcev, svojcev in zaposlenih 
v domu upokojencev Špesov dom Vojnik (magistrska naloga). 
Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta za organizacijske vede, Maribor. 
Retrieved from https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=72872
Ciemins, E. L., Brant, J., Kersten, D., Mullette, E., & Dickerson, D. 
(2016). Why the interdisciplinary team approach works: Insights 
from complexity science. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 19(7). 
https://doi.org/10.1089/jpm.2015.0398   
PMid:27104490 
Foster, R., & Macleod Clark, J. (2015). Moderating the stereotypical 
views of health and social care students: The role of interprofessional 
education. Journal of Interprofesional Care, 29(1), 34–40. 
https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2014.936059
PMid:25006869
Foth, T., Block, K., Stamer, M., & Schmacke, N. (2015). The 
long way toward cooperation: Nurses and family physicians 
in Northern Germany. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 2. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393614565185
PMid:28462297; PMCid:PMC5342292
21Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022)/Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), pp. 9–21.
Cite as/Citirajte kot: 
Šanc, P., & Prosen, M. (2022). Interprofessional collaboration in interdisciplinary healthcare teams: A quantitative descriptive 
study. Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 56(1), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2022.56.1.3106
Halbert, J. D. (2017). Exploring if inter-professional collaboration 
can predict burnout in health care. Michigan: Proquest. Retrieved 
from https://search.proquest.com/docview/1989734755?pq-orig
site=gscholar&fromopenview=true 
Huq, J. L., Reay, T., & Chreim, S. (2017). Protecting the paradox 
of interprofessional collaboration. Organization Studies, 
38(3/4), 513–538. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840616640847
Ilić, I. M., Arandjelović, M. Ž., Jovanović, J. M., & Nešić, M. M. 
(2017). Relationships of work-related psychosocial risks, stress, 
individual factors and burnout: Questionnaire survey among 
emergency physicians and nurses. Medycyna Pracy, 68(2), 167–178. 
https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.00516
PMid:28345677
Kamenšek, T., Kavčič, M., & Domanjko, B. (2020). Vpliv 
medpoklicnega izobraževanja medicinskih sester na njihovo 
medpoklicno sodelovanje: Sistematični pregled literature. 
Obzornik zdravstvene nege, 54(2), 153–163. 
https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2020.54.2.2980
Kenaszchuk, C., Reeves, S., Nicholas, D., & Zwarenstein, M. (2010). 
Interprofessional collaboration scale: Validity and reliability 
of a multiple-group measurement scale for interprofessional 
collaboration. BMC Health Services Research, 10(83).
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-10-83
PMid:20353577; PMCid:PMC2867963
Kendall-Gallagher, D., Reeves, S., Alexanian, J. A., & Kitto, S. (2017). A 
nursing perspective of interprofessional work in critical care: Findings 
from a secondary analysis. Journal of Critical Care, 38, 20–26. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.10.007
PMid:27835799
Kodeks etike v zdravstveni negi in oskrbi Slovenije in Kodeks etike 
za babice Slovenije. (2014). Ljubljana: Zbornica zdravstvene in 
babiške nege Slovenije – Zveza strokovnih društev medicinskih 
sester, babic in zdravstvenih tehnikov Slovenije.
Korenčan, A. (2020). Učinkovitost interdisciplinarnih timov 
v slovenskem zdravstvu (magistrska naloga). Univerza v 
Mariboru, Fakulteta za organizacijske vede, Maribor. Retrieved 
from https://dk.um.si/IzpisGradiva.php?id=77742&lang=slv
Pullon, S., Morgan, S., Macdonald, L., McKinlay, E., & Gray, 
B. (2016). Observation of interprofessional collaboration in 
primary care practice: A multiple case study. Journal of 
Interprofessional Care, 30(6), 787–794.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1220929
PMid:27797634
Reeves, S., Pelone, F., Harrison, R., Goldman, J., & Zwarenstein, 
M. (2017). Interprofessional collaboration to improve 
professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane 
Database Systematic Reviews, 6(6). 
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000072.pub3
PMid:28639262; PMCid:PMC6481564
Rojko, H. (2019). Medpoklicno sodelovanje medicinskih 
sester in zdravnikov za boljšo kulturo varnosti pacientov 
(magistrska naloga). Maribor: Univerza v Mariboru, Fakulteta 
za zdravstvene vede. Retrieved from https://dk.um.si/
IzpisGradiva.php?id=74387
Romijn, A., Teunissen, P. W., de Bruijne, M. C., Wagner, C., 
& de Groot, C. J. M. (2016). Interprofessional collaboration 
among care professionals in obstetrical care: Are perceptions 
aligned. BMJ Quality & Safety, 27(4), 279–286. 
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006401
PMid:28951532; PMCid:PMC5867446
Schot, E., Tummers, L., & Noordegraaf, M. (2019). Working 
on working together. A systematic review on how healthcare 
professionals contribute to interprofessional collaboration. 
Journal of Interprofesional Care, 34(3), 332–342. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1636007
PMid:31329469
Serrano-Gemes, G., & Rich-Ruiz, M. (2017). Intensity of 
interprofessional collaboration among intensive care nurses at 
a tertiary hospital. Enfermería  Intensiva, 28(2), 48–56. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enfie.2016.10.002
Strauss, M., Goriup, J., Križmarić, M., & Koželj, A. (2018). 
Sodelovanje med medicinskimi sestrami in zdravniki: Ocene 
študentov zdravstvene nege in medicine. Obzornik zdravstvene 
nege, 52(4), 225–232. 
https://doi.org/10.14528/snr.2018.52.2.170
Veingerl Čič, Ž. (2017). Model upravljanja individualne 
uspešnosti zaposlenih s poudarkom na celovitih metodah razvoja 
zaposlenih in njegov vpliv na psihično dobro počutje v podjetjih 
storitvene dejavnosti (doktorska disertacija). Univerza v 
Mariboru, Ekonomsko poslovna fakulteta, Maribor. Retrieved 
from https://dk.um.si/Dokument.php?id=113368
Vestergaard, E., & Nørgaard, B. (2018). Interprofessional 
collaboration: An exploration of possible prerequisites for 
successful implementation. Journal of Interprofesional Care, 
32(2), 185–195. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2017.1363725
PMid:29144793
Wieser, H., Mischo-Kelling, M., Vittadello, F., Cavada, L., 
Lochner, I. Fink, V., … Reeves, S. (2019). Perceptions of 
collaborative relationships between seven different health care 
professions in Northern Italy. Journal of Interprofesional Care, 
33(2), 133–142. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2018.1534810
PMid:30346847
World Medical Association. (2013). World Medical Association 
Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research 
involving human subjects. Journal of the American Medical 
Association, 310(20), 2191–2194.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053
PMid:24141714