Development and validation of the primary care team dynamics survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
To develop and validate a survey instrument designed to measure team dynamics in primary care.Data sources/study setting
We studied 1,080 physician and nonphysician health care professionals working at 18 primary care practices participating in a learning collaborative aimed at improving team-based care.Study design
We developed a conceptual model and administered a cross-sectional survey addressing team dynamics, and we assessed reliability and discriminant validity of survey factors and the overall survey's goodness-of-fit using structural equation modeling.Data collection
We administered the survey between September 2012 and March 2013.Principal findings
Overall response rate was 68 percent (732 respondents). Results support a seven-factor model of team dynamics, suggesting that conditions for team effectiveness, shared understanding, and three supportive processes are associated with acting and feeling like a team and, in turn, perceived team effectiveness. This model demonstrated adequate fit (goodness-of-fit index: 0.91), scale reliability (Cronbach's alphas: 0.71-0.91), and discriminant validity (average factor correlations: 0.49).Conclusions
It is possible to measure primary care team dynamics reliably using a 29-item survey. This survey may be used in ambulatory settings to study teamwork and explore the effect of efforts to improve team-based care. Future studies should demonstrate the importance of team dynamics for markers of team effectiveness (e.g., work satisfaction, care quality, clinical outcomes).
SUBMITTER: Song H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4450936 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:There remains a need to improve patient safety in primary care settings. Studies have demonstrated that creating high-performing teams can improve patient safety and encourage a safety culture within hospital settings, but little is known about this relationship in primary care. Objective:To examine how team dynamics relate to perceptions of safety culture in primary care and whether care coordination plays an intermediating role. Research Design:This is a cross-sectional survey study with 63% response (n = 1082). Subjects:The study participants were attending clinicians, resident physicians and other staff who interacted with patients from 19 primary care practices affiliated with Harvard Medical School. Main Measures:Three domains corresponding with our main measures: team dynamics, care coordination and safety culture. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale. We used linear regression clustered by practice site to assess the relationship between team dynamics and perceptions of safety culture. We also performed a mediation analysis to determine the extent to which care coordination explains the relationship between perceptions of team dynamics and of safety culture. Results:For every 1-point increase in overall team dynamics, there was a 0.76-point increase in perception of safety culture [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.82, P < 0.001]. Care coordination mediated the relationship between team dynamics and the perception of safety culture. Conclusion:Our findings suggest there is a relationship between team dynamics, care coordination and perceptions of patient safety in a primary care setting. To make patients safer, we may need to pay more attention to how primary care providers work together to coordinate care.
| S-EPMC7190894 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To adapt the consumer version of the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCAT) for Vietnam and determine its internal consistency and validity.A quantitative cross sectional study.56 communes in 3 representative provinces of central Vietnam.Total of 3289 people who used health care services at health facility at least once over the past two years.The Vietnamese adult expanded consumer version of the PCAT (VN PCAT-AE) is an instrument for evaluation of primary care in Vietnam with 70 items comprising six scales representing four core primary care domains, and three additional scales representing three derivative domains. Sixteen other items from the original tool were not included in the final instrument, due to problems with missing values, floor or ceiling effects, and item-total correlations. All the retained scales have a Cronbach's alpha above 0.70 except for the subscale of Family Centeredness.The VN PCAT-AE demonstrates adequate internal consistency and validity to be used as an effective tool for measuring the quality of primary care in Vietnam from the consumer perspective. Additional work in the future to optimize valid measurement in all domains consistent with the original version of the tool may be helpful as the primary care system in Vietnam further develops.
| S-EPMC5764365 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMeasuring quality of primary care has attracted much attention around the world. Our team has developed and validated an Assessment Survey of Primary Care (ASPC) for evaluating quality of primary care in China. To facilitate the daily use of ASPC, this study aimed to develop and validate a rapid assessment version of ASPC (RA-ASPC) in China.MethodsThis is a multi-phase study on 21 experts and 1,184 patients from 12 primary care facilities in 10 cities in China. Importance, representativeness, easy understanding, and general applicability of each item in ASPC scale were rated to select the top two ranked items for constituting RA-ASPC. Reliability of RA-ASPC was tested by calculating both Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients. Structural validity was assessed by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis (EFA and CFA). Concurrent validity was performed by analyzing the relationship between RA-ASPC and patient satisfaction. Discriminant validity was tested by assessing the difference of RA-ASPC scores between patients with or without family doctors.ResultsTen items were selected for RA-ASPC. Both Cronbach's alpha (0.732) and McDonald's omega (0.729) suggested satisfactory internal consistency. In EFA, explained variance of RA-ASPC (72.6%) indicated its ability to measure quality of primary care in China. CFA indicators showed convincing goodness-of-fit (GFI = 0.996, AGFI = 0.992, CFI = 1.000, NFI = 0.980, RMR = 0.022, and the RMSEA = 0.000) for RA-ASPC. Positive association between RA-ASPC and patient satisfaction supported the concurrent validity of RA-ASPC. Patients with family doctors perceived higher quality of primary care than those without family doctors, indicating good discriminant validity of RA-ASPC.ConclusionThe theoretical framework of RA-ASPC was in line with internationally recognized core functions of primary care. Good psychometric properties of RA-ASPC proved its appropriateness in assessing quality of primary care from patients' perspectives in China.
| S-EPMC9127135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with mental illness are frequently treated in primary care, where Primary Care Providers (PCPs) report feeling ill-equipped to manage their care. Team-based models of care improve outcomes for patients with mental illness, but multiple barriers limit adoption. Barriers include practical issues and psychosocial factors associated with the reorganization of care. Practice facilitation can improve implementation, but does not directly address the psychosocial factors or gaps in PCP skills in managing mental illness. To address these gaps, we developed Relational Team Development (RELATED). METHODS:RELATED is an implementation strategy combining practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision methodologies to improve implementation of team-based care. It includes PCP-level clinical coaching and a team-level practice change activity. We performed a preliminary assessment of RELATED with a convergent parallel mixed method study in 2 primary care clinics in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in Southwest, USA, 2017-2018. Study participants included PCPs, clinic staff, and patient representatives. Clinic staff and patients were recruited for the practice change activity only. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed as ease of recruitment and implementation. Acceptability was measured in surveys of PCPs and staff and focus groups. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 3 participant groups in each clinic: PCPs; staff and patients; and leadership. Secondary outcomes were change in pre- post- intervention PCP self-efficacy in mental illness management and team-based care. We conducted qualitative observations to better understand clinic climate. RESULTS:We recruited 18 PCPs, 17 staff members, and 3 patient representatives. We ended recruitment early due to over recruitment. Both clinics developed and implemented practice change activities. The mean acceptability score was 3.7 (SD=0.3) on a 4-point Likert scale. PCPs had a statistically significant increase in their mental illness management self-efficacy [change = 0.9, p-value= <.01]. Focus group comments were largely positive, with PCPs requesting additional coaching. CONCLUSIONS:RELATED was feasible and highly acceptable. It led to positive changes in PCP self-efficacy in Mental Illness Management. If confirmed as an effective implementation strategy, RELATED has the potential to significantly impact implementation of evidence-based interventions for patients with mental illness in primary care.
| S-EPMC6792180 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe science of effective teams is well documented; far less is known, however, about how specific team configurations may impact primary care team effectiveness. Further, teams experiencing frequent personnel changes (perhaps as a consequence of poor implementation) may have difficulty delivering effective, continuous, well-coordinated care. This study aims to examine the extent to which primary care clinics in the Veterans Health Administration have implemented team configurations consistent with recommendations based on the Patient-Centered Medical Home model and the extent to which adherence to said recommendations, team stability, and role stability impact healthcare quality. Specifically, we expect to find better clinical outcomes in teams that adhere to recommended team configurations, teams whose membership and configuration are more stable over time, and teams whose clinical manager role is more stable over time.Methods/designWe will employ a combination of social network analysis and multilevel modeling to conduct a database review of variables extracted from the Veterans Health Administration's Team Assignments Report (TAR) (one of the largest, most diverse existing national samples of primary care teams (nteams > 7000)), as well as other employee and clinical data sources. To ensure the examination of appropriate clinical outcomes, we will enlist a team of subject matter experts to select a concise set of clear, prioritized primary care performance metrics. We will accomplish this using the Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System, an evidence-based methodology for developing and implementing performance measurement.DiscussionWe are unaware of other studies of healthcare teams that consider team size, composition, and configuration longitudinally or with sample sizes of this magnitude. Results from this study can inform primary care team implementation policy and practice in both private- and public-sector clinics, such that teams are configured optimally, with adequate staffing, and the right mix of roles within the team.Trial registrationNot applicable-this study does not involve interventions on human participants.
| S-EPMC6404317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The proposed ONE TEAM Study is an 18-month, cluster randomized controlled trial. This study will use a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) design with a second randomization for the intervention group using a dynamic treatment regimen approach. The investigators propose to randomize 800 adults with newly-diagnosed selected cancers treated with curative intent (breast, prostate, colorectal, endometrial, non-small cell lung, and endometrial) and with >1 selected cardiovascular disease (CVD) comorbidity (hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia). Participants will be enrolled through Duke Cancer Institute and two community-based oncology practices, both settings serving socio-demographically diverse populations. The unit of randomization will be the PCP clinic; there will be ~80 PCP clinics across North Carolina involved in the study. The overarching goals of this study are to improve chronic disease management and communication among cancer survivors by engaging PCPs as active members of the cancer care team and reframing the message to cancer survivors and providers.
A diversity supplement with retrospective and qualitative components has been added to abstract older adults with solid tumors who underwent cancer surgery at DUHS. Aims include (1) to estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular complications ≤90 postoperative days among older adults with solid tumors undergoing surgery, and its association with care coordination between surgical providers and PCPs ; (2) to develop a risk index for cardiovascular complications ≤90 days of surgery among older adult patients with a solid tumor; and (3) to Assess experience and perceptions of PCPs on care coordination with surgical providers of older adults with a solid tumor following cancer surgery.
| 2329282 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:PurposeSpecialty care coordination relies on information flowing bidirectionally between all three participants in the "specialty care triad" - patients, primary care providers (PCPs), and specialists. Measures of coordination should strive to account for the perspectives of each. As we previously developed two surveys to measure coordination of specialty care as experienced by PCPs and specialists, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a related survey of specialty care coordination as experienced by the patient, thereby completing the suite of surveys among the triad.MethodsWe developed a draft survey based on literature review, patient interviews, adaptation of existing measures, and development of new items. Survey responses were collected via mail and online in two waves, August 2019-November 2019 and September 2020-May 2021, among patients (N=939) receiving medical specialty care and primary care in the Veterans Affairs health system. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess scale structure. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship of the final coordination scales to patients' overall experience of specialty care coordination.ResultsA 38-item measure representing 10 factors that assess the patient's experience of coordination in specialty care among the patient, PCP, and specialist was finalized. Scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and, together, explained 59% of the variance in overall coordination. Analyses revealed an unexpected construct describing organization of care between patient and specialist that accounted for patient goals and preferences; this 10-item scale was named Patient-Centered Care Coordination.ConclusionsThe final survey, Coordination of Specialty Care - Patient, or CSC-Patient for short, is a reliable instrument that can be used alone or with its companions (CSC-PCP, CSC-Specialist) to provide a detailed assessment of specialty care coordination and identify targets for coordination improvement.
| S-EPMC10688916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCommunity health centers are increasingly embracing the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model to improve quality, access to care, and patient experience while reducing healthcare costs. Care coordination (CC) is an important element of the PCMH model, but implementation and measurability of CC remains a problem within the outpatient setting. Assessing CC is an integral component of quality monitoring in health care systems. This study developed and validated the Medical Home Care Coordination Survey (MHCCS), to fill the gap in assessing CC in primary care from the perspectives of patients and their primary healthcare teams.MethodsWe conducted a review of relevant literature and existing care coordination instruments identified by bibliographic search and contact with experts. After identifying all care coordination domains that could be assessed by primary healthcare team members and patients, we developed a conceptual model. Potentially appropriate items from existing published CC measures, along with newly developed items, were matched to each domain for inclusion. A modified Delphi approach was used to establish content validity. Primary survey data was collected from 232 patients with care transition and/or complex chronic illness needs from the Community Health Center, Inc. and from 164 staff members from 12 community health centers across the country via mail, phone and online survey. The MHCCS was validated for internal consistency, reliability, discriminant and convergent validity. This study was conducted at the Community Health Center, Inc. from January 15, 2012 to July 15, 2014.ResultsThe 13-item MHCCS - Patient and the 32-item MHCCS - Healthcare Team were developed and validated. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling was used to test the hypothesized domain structure. Four CC domains were confirmed from the patient group and eight were confirmed from the primary healthcare team group. All domains had high reliability (Cronbach's α scores were above 0.8).ConclusionsPatients experience the ultimate output of care coordination services, but primary healthcare staff members are best primed to perceive many of the structural elements of care coordination. The proactive measurement and monitoring of the core domains from both perspectives provides a richer body of information for the continuous improvement of care coordination services. The MHCCS shows promise as a valid and reliable assessment of these CC efforts.
| S-EPMC4482098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although advance care planning (ACP) is fairly well understood, significant barriers to patient participation remain. As a result, tools to assess patient behaviour are required. The objective of this study was to improve the measurement of patient engagement in ACP by detecting existing survey design issues and establishing content and response process validity for a new survey entitled Behaviours in Advance Care Planning and ACtions Survey (BACPACS).We based our new tool on that of an existing ACP engagement survey. Initial item reduction was carried out using behavior change theories by content and design experts to help reduce response burden and clarify questions. Thirty-two patients with chronic diseases (cancer, heart failure or renal failure) were recruited for the think aloud cognitive interviewing with the new, shortened survey evaluating patient engagement with ACP. Of these, n?=?27 had data eligible for analysis (n?=?8 in round 1 and n?=?19 in rounds 2 and 3). Interviews were audio-recorded and analyzed using the constant comparison method. Three reviewers independently listened to the interviews, summarized findings and discussed discrepancies until consensus was achieved.Item reduction from key content expert review and conversation analysis helped decrease number of items from 116 in the original ACP Engagement Survey to 24-38 in the new BACPACS depending on branching of responses. For the think aloud study, three rounds of interviews were needed until saturation for patient clarity was achieved. The understanding of ACP as a construct, survey response options, instructions and terminology pertaining to patient engagement in ACP warranted further clarification.Conversation analysis, content expert review and think aloud cognitive interviewing were useful in refining the new survey instrument entitled BACPACS. We found evidence for both content and response process validity for this new tool.
| S-EPMC5700663 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to validate a new generic patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), among a diverse sample of health and social care users in England. DESIGN:Cross-sectional validation survey. Data were collected through postal surveys (February 2016-January 2017). The sample included a healthcare cohort of patients recruited through primary care practices, and a social care cohort recruited through local government bodies that provide social care services. PARTICIPANTS:1211 participants (24% confirmed social care recipients) took part in the study. Healthcare participants were recruited on the basis of having one of 11 specified long-term conditions (LTCs), and social care participants were recruited on the basis of receiving social care support for at least one LTC. The sample exhibited high multimorbidity, with 93% reporting two or more LTCs and 43% reporting a mental health condition. OUTCOME MEASURES:The LTCQ's construct validity was tested with reference to the EQ-5D (5-level version), the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale, an Activities of Daily Living scale and the Bayliss burden of morbidity scale. RESULTS:Low levels of missing data for each item indicate acceptability of the LTCQ across the sample. The LTCQ exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach's ?=0.95) across the scale's 20 items and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.94, 95%?CI 0.93 to 0.95). Associations between the LTCQ and all reference measures were moderate to strong and in the expected directions, indicating convergent construct validity. CONCLUSIONS:This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the LTCQ, which has potential for use in both health and social care settings. The LTCQ could meet a need for holistic outcome measurement that goes beyond symptoms and physical function, complementing existing measures to capture fully what it means to live well with LTCs.
| S-EPMC5695378 | biostudies-other