Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary teams, and parents, negotiating common ground in shared-care of children with long-term conditions: a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Limited negotiation around care decisions is believed to undermine collaborative working between parents of children with long-term conditions and professionals, but there is little evidence of how they actually negotiate their respective roles. Using chronic kidney disease as an exemplar this paper reports on a multi-method study of social interaction between multidisciplinary teams and parents as they shared clinical care.

Methods

Phases 1 and 2: a telephone survey mapping multidisciplinary teams' parent-educative activities, and qualitative interviews with 112 professionals (Clinical-psychologists, Dietitians, Doctors, Nurses, Play-specialists, Pharmacists, Therapists and Social-workers) exploring their accounts of parent-teaching in the 12 British children's kidney units. Phase 3: six ethnographic case studies in two units involving observations of professional/parent interactions during shared-care, and individual interviews. We used an analytical framework based on concepts drawn from Communities of Practice and Activity Theory.

Results

Professionals spoke of the challenge of explaining to each other how they are aware of parents' understanding of clinical knowledge, and described three patterns of parent-educative activity that were common across MDTs: Engaging parents in shared practice; Knowledge exchange and role negotiation, and Promoting common ground. Over time, professionals had developed a shared repertoire of tools to support their negotiations with parents that helped them accomplish common ground during the practice of shared-care. We observed mutual engagement between professionals and parents where a common understanding of the joint enterprise of clinical caring was negotiated.

Conclusions

For professionals, making implicit knowledge explicit is important as it can provide them with a language through which to articulate more clearly to each other what is the basis of their intuition-based hunches about parents' support needs, and may help them to negotiate with parents and accelerate parents' learning about shared caring. Our methodology and results are potentially transferrable to shared management of other conditions.

SUBMITTER: Swallow VM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3720539 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multidisciplinary teams, and parents, negotiating common ground in shared-care of children with long-term conditions: a mixed methods study.

Swallow Veronica M VM Nightingale Ruth R Williams Julian J Lambert Heather H Webb Nicholas J A NJ Smith Trish T Wirz Lucy L Qizalbash Leila L Crowther Laura L Allen Davina D

BMC health services research 20130708

<h4>Background</h4>Limited negotiation around care decisions is believed to undermine collaborative working between parents of children with long-term conditions and professionals, but there is little evidence of how they actually negotiate their respective roles. Using chronic kidney disease as an exemplar this paper reports on a multi-method study of social interaction between multidisciplinary teams and parents as they shared clinical care.<h4>Methods</h4>Phases 1 and 2: a telephone survey ma ...[more]

PMID: 23835151

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Although stakeholders' participation in healthcare is increasingly recommended, bereaved parents are often excluded for perceived potential risks to them. The objective of this study is to describe the ongoing involvement and the perspectives of bereaved parents engaged in different types of activities in Neonatal Intensive Care Units and providers who work with them. DESIGN/METHODS:Mixed methods convergent analysis. SETTING:Canadian paediatric tertiary care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS:All bereaved members of the resource parents group (n=8) and most providers who work with them (n=16) answered a satisfaction/needs questionnaires. RESULTS:Since 2011, eight bereaved parents were involved in a large number of activities mostly related to palliative care (research, education or clinical care initiatives). Three engaged in peer-to-peer support activities while the others preferred activities outside of clinical units and/or without direct interactions with other families. All of them reported that their participation had positive impacts, but two parents also reported a reactivation of traumatic experiences during a medical simulation activity. All participants expressed a desire for further collaboration. Motivation to contribute gravitated around two central themes: helping others and helping themselves. Many wanted to give back, help other families, improve the system and meet with providers who had cared for their child. All stated that this kind of involvement empowered them and gave meaning to their experiences. Providers and researchers all reported positive experiences, mainly due to the unique perspectives of bereaved parents who took part in their projects. CONCLUSIONS:With careful recruitment and supervision, some bereaved parents can become resource parents involved in different types of activities. It is important to understand the positive impacts this type of engagement can have on their healing process and to control the risks related to their participation. Research is needed to develop pertinent tools and measures to evaluate the outcomes and impacts of their participation.

Project description:BackgroundThe diagnostic odyssey for people with a rare disease is well known, but difficulties do not stop at diagnosis. Here we investigate the experience of people, or parents of children with a diagnosed mitochondrial respiratory chain disorder (MRCD) in the management of their disease. The work complements ongoing projects around implementation of consensus recommendations for management of people with MRCD. People with or caring for a child with a formally diagnosed MRCD were invited to take part in an hour-long focus group held via videoconference. Questions elicited experiences of receiving management advice or information specific to their MRCD in four areas drawn from the consensus recommendations: diet and supplements, exercise, access to social services, and mental health. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive coding.ResultsFocus groups were conducted with 20 participants from five Australian states in June-September 2020. Fourteen adults with a MRCD (three of whom also had a child with a MRCD), and six who cared for a child with a MRCD took part. The overarching finding was that of the need for ongoing negotiation to access the advice and service required to manage their condition. The nature of these negotiations varied across contexts but mostly related to joint decision-making, and more commonly, the need to advocate for their care with non-specialist services (e.g., dieticians, schools). The effort required for this self-advocacy was a prominent theme. While most participants reported receiving adequate advice around supplements, and to a lesser extent diet and exercise, the majority reported no formal advice around mental health or practical assistance accessing social services.ConclusionThese focus groups have revealed several gaps in the system for people with a MRCD, interacting with care providers after diagnosis. Focus group participants had to negotiate with a range of different stakeholders in order to secure appropriate advice or services. Notable was the gap in appropriate generalist services (e.g., dieticians) with sufficient knowledge of MRCD to support people with their day-to-day challenges.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Successful implementation of new clinical programs depends on effectively establishing, reorganizing, or enhancing team structures and processes to coordinate the work of individuals who are interdependent in their tasks, manage relationships, and share responsibility for outcomes. However, a one-size-fits-all approach is rarely effective. In partnership with VA national clinical leaders and local clinical champions, the Optimizing Function and Independence VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative program (Function QUERI) will evaluate efforts to implement team-based clinical programs for Veterans at risk for functional decline and disability. METHODS:Function QUERI will implement and evaluate three innovative, evidence-based clinical programs in VA medical centers: (1) a group physical therapy program for knee osteoarthritis (Group PT); (2) assisted early mobility for hospitalized older veterans (STRIDE), a supervised walking program for hospitalized older veterans; and (3) implementation of helping invested family members improve veteran experiences study (iHI-FIVES), a skills training program for caregivers of disabled Veterans. A common reason for clinical care gaps in these populations is poor communication and coordination among the many interdisciplinary providers involved in their care. To facilitate the implementation of the clinical programs, Function QUERI will evaluate the impact of complexity science-based implementation intervention to promote team readiness (CONNECT), an implementation intervention designed as a bundle of interaction-oriented activities to promote team function and readiness for change, on the implementation of clinical programs across multiple sites. The evaluation will use a mixed methods design. Group PT is a local, single-site quality improvement project where a modified CONNECT intervention will be tested to inform the remaining program implementation projects. For STRIDE and iHI-FIVES projects, we will randomize participating sites to implement the clinical program, with the CONNECT intervention or not, and will use a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial design. DISCUSSION:Function QUERI will translate its findings across its projects to identify the contextual factors and components from CONNECT that improve team processes and function to optimize effective implementation for future rollout of VA clinical programs. Synthesizing findings within and across projects, we will specify dimensions of team characteristics and function that enhance capacity for clinical innovation and uptake of evidence-based programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03300336 Registered September 28, 2017, NCT03474380 Registered March 15, 2018.

Project description:ObjectiveThe success of COVID-19 vaccination programs relies on community attitudes, yet little is known about parents' views. We aimed to explore the reasons behind Australian parents' vaccine intentions for themselves and for their children.MethodThis mixed methods study relates to Wave 13 (January 2021) of a longitudinal study of Australian parents' experiences during COVID-19 and contained 1094 participants (83% mothers). We used multinomial logistic regression to understand demographic predictors of vaccine intention, and a descriptive template thematic analysis to analyse open-ended questions about parents' reasons for vaccine intentions for themselves and their children.Results64% of Australian parents intend on vaccination, 26% are unsure and 9% intend to decline; 48% intend to vaccinate their children, 38% are unsure, and 14% intend to decline. Relative to those intending to vaccinate, parents unsure (OR = -0.63, 95% CI: 0.46, -0.84, p = .002) or not intending (OR = -0.41, 95% CI: 0.24, 0.67 p < .001) to vaccinate were more likely to have lower trust in doctors. Similar predictors emerged for parents who did not intend to vaccinate their children (OR = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.70, p < .001). Qualitative data indicated that many parents had not made a firm decision, including a lack of alignment between intentions and reasons. For example, parents who said 'yes' to vaccination, often then expressed hesitance and a focus on risks in their written response. Reasons for hesitancy for themselves included concerns about testing, side effects, and long-term outcomes. Similar themes were present for children, but parents expressed a strong desire to protect their children, and an eagerness for health information.ConclusionBased on prior research and the themes identified here, a multipronged campaign that includes education/promotion, good access to vaccines and role models, is likely to support parents to make informed decisions regarding COVID-19 vaccination.

Dataset Information

Multidisciplinary teams, and parents, negotiating common ground in shared-care of children with long-term conditions: a mixed methods study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Multidisciplinary teams, and parents, negotiating common ground in shared-care of children with long-term conditions: a mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure