Patients' and health professionals' perceptions of teamwork in primary care.

IF 1.1 Q4 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Journal of primary health care Pub Date : 2011-06-01
Susan Pullon, Eileen McKinlay, Maria Stubbe, Lindsay Todd, Christopher Badenhorst
{"title":"Patients' and health professionals' perceptions of teamwork in primary care.","authors":"Susan Pullon,&nbsp;Eileen McKinlay,&nbsp;Maria Stubbe,&nbsp;Lindsay Todd,&nbsp;Christopher Badenhorst","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Effective teamwork in primary care settings is integral to the ongoing health of those with chronic conditions. This study compares patient and health professional perceptions about teams, team membership, and team members' roles. This study aimed to test both the feasibility of undertaking a collaborative method of enquiry as a means of investigating patient perceptions about teamwork in the context of their current health care, and also to compare and contrast these views with those of their usual health professionals in New Zealand suburban general practice settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a qualitative methodology, 10 in-depth interviews with eight informants at two practices were conducted and data analysed using inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The methodology successfully elicited confidential interviews with both patients and the health professionals providing their care. Perceptions of the perceived value of team care and qualities facilitating good teamwork were largely concordant. Patient and health professionals differed in their knowledge and understanding about team roles and current chronic care programmes, and had differing perceptions about health care team leadership.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study supports the consensus that team-based care is essential for those with chronic conditions, but suggests important differences between patient and health professional views as to who should be in a health care team and what their respective roles might be in primary care settings. These differences are worthy of further exploration, as a lack of common understanding has the potential to consistently undermine otherwise well-intentioned efforts to achieve best possible health for patients with chronic conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16855,"journal":{"name":"Journal of primary health care","volume":"3 2","pages":"128-35"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2011-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of primary health care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Effective teamwork in primary care settings is integral to the ongoing health of those with chronic conditions. This study compares patient and health professional perceptions about teams, team membership, and team members' roles. This study aimed to test both the feasibility of undertaking a collaborative method of enquiry as a means of investigating patient perceptions about teamwork in the context of their current health care, and also to compare and contrast these views with those of their usual health professionals in New Zealand suburban general practice settings.

Methods: Using a qualitative methodology, 10 in-depth interviews with eight informants at two practices were conducted and data analysed using inductive thematic analysis.

Findings: The methodology successfully elicited confidential interviews with both patients and the health professionals providing their care. Perceptions of the perceived value of team care and qualities facilitating good teamwork were largely concordant. Patient and health professionals differed in their knowledge and understanding about team roles and current chronic care programmes, and had differing perceptions about health care team leadership.

Conclusions: This study supports the consensus that team-based care is essential for those with chronic conditions, but suggests important differences between patient and health professional views as to who should be in a health care team and what their respective roles might be in primary care settings. These differences are worthy of further exploration, as a lack of common understanding has the potential to consistently undermine otherwise well-intentioned efforts to achieve best possible health for patients with chronic conditions.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
患者和卫生专业人员对初级保健团队合作的看法。
初级保健机构中有效的团队合作对于慢性病患者的持续健康是不可或缺的。本研究比较了患者和健康专业人员对团队、团队成员和团队成员角色的看法。本研究的目的是测试采用协作询问方法作为调查患者在其当前医疗保健背景下对团队合作的看法的一种手段的可行性,并将这些观点与新西兰郊区普通医疗机构中通常的卫生专业人员的观点进行比较和对比。方法:采用定性方法,对两个诊所的8名举报人进行了10次深度访谈,并采用归纳主题分析方法对数据进行了分析。结果:该方法成功地引出了与患者和提供其护理的卫生专业人员的保密访谈。对团队关怀的感知价值和促进良好团队合作的素质的感知在很大程度上是一致的。患者和卫生专业人员对团队角色和当前慢性护理规划的知识和理解存在差异,对卫生保健团队领导的看法也存在差异。结论:本研究支持以团队为基础的护理对慢性疾病患者至关重要的共识,但表明患者和卫生专业人员对谁应该加入卫生保健团队以及他们各自在初级保健环境中可能扮演的角色的看法存在重要差异。这些差异值得进一步探讨,因为缺乏共识有可能持续破坏为慢性病患者实现最佳健康的善意努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of primary health care
Journal of primary health care PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
16.70%
发文量
79
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Does exercise benefit people with osteoarthritis of the knee? Community pharmacy service provision to adults with palliative care needs in their last year of life: a scoping review. Contribution of the community pharmacist workforce to primary care through the lens of medicines classification: comparison of Aotearoa New Zealand and Australia. Conventional medication adherence and self-treatment practices among South Asian immigrants: a qualitative study. Managing medicines-related continuity of care: the views of a range of prescribers in New Zealand general practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1