Dataset Information

Who is on the primary care team? Professionals' perceptions of the conceptualization of teams and the underlying factors: a mixed-methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Due to the growing prevalence of elderly patients with multi-morbidity living at home, there is an increasing need for primary care professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds to collaborate as primary care teams. However, it is unclear how primary care professionals conceptualize teams and what underlying factors influence their perception of being part of a team. Our research question is: What are primary care professionals' perceptions of teams and team membership among primary care disciplines and what factors influence their perceptions?

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study in the Dutch primary care setting. First, a survey study of 152 professionals representing 12 primary care disciplines was conducted, focusing on their perceptions of which disciplines are part of the team and the degree of relational coordination between professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds. Subsequently, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 professionals representing 5 primary care disciplines to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying factors influencing their perceptions and the (mis)alignment between these perceptions.

Results

Misalignments were found between perceptions regarding which disciplines are members of the team and the relational coordination between disciplines. For example, general practitioners were viewed as part of the team by helping assistants, (district) nurses, occupational therapists and geriatric specialized practice nurses, whereas the general practitioners themselves only considered geriatric specialized practice nurses to be part of their team. Professionals perceive multidisciplinary primary care teams as having multiple inner and outer layers. Three factors influence their perception of being part of a team and acting accordingly: a) knowing the people you work with, b) the necessity for knowledge exchange and c) sharing a holistic view of caregiving.

Conclusion

Research and practice should take into account the misalignment between primary care professionals' perceptions of primary care teams, as our study notes variations in the conceptualization of primary care teams. To enhance teamwork between professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds, professionals acknowledge the importance of three underlying conditions: team familiarity, regular and structured knowledge exchange between all professionals involved in the care process and realizing and believing in the added value for patients of working as a team.

SUBMITTER: Doekhie KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5745958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMeasuring the performance of a primary care system is one of the very first steps to find out whether there is room for improvement. To obtain an objective and comprehensive view, this measurement should come from both the supply and demand sides of the system. Patients' experiences of primary care have been studied around the world, but much less energy has been invested in researching providers' perspectives. This research aims to explore how primary care physicians working at commune health centers in Vietnam evaluate their performance and their opinions on how to improve the quality of primary care services.Materials and methodsFirst, a quantitative study was conducted using the validated Vietnamese PCAT questionnaire-provider expanded version (VN PCAT PE) targeting all primary care physicians (PCPs) working at commune health centers in a province of Central Vietnam. Next, a qualitative study was carried out, consisting of in-depth interviews with PCPs, to better understand the results of the quantitative survey and gain insight on barriers of primary care services and how to overcome them.ResultsIn the quantitative portion of our study, 150 PCPs rated the quality of ongoing care and first contact in CHCs as the best (3.09 and 3.11 out of 4, respectively), and coordination as the worst performing core domain (2.53). Twenty-two PCPs also participated in our qualitative research. In regards to challenges that primary care physicians face during their daily practice, three central themes emerged: 1) patient factors such as client attitude and knowledge, 2) provider factors such as the burden of administrative work and lack of training opportunities, and 3) contextual factors such as low income and lack of resources including medicines and diagnostics. Participants recommended more health promotion campaigns in the media, increasing the number of services available at CHCs (such as being able to take blood samples), reducing the workload related to administration for CHC leaders, greater government subsidies, and providing more training courses for PCPs.ConclusionsFindings from this study offer a valuable view from the supply-side of the primary care system, specifically those who directly deliver primary care services. Along with the earlier study on consumers' evaluation of the Vietnamese primary care system, and literature from other low and middle-income countries, these findings offer emerging evidence for policymakers to improve the quality of primary care in Vietnam.

Project description:BackgroundOwing to the shortage of medical professionals, as well as demographic and structural challenges, new care models have emerged to find innovative solutions to counter medical undersupply. Team-based primary care using medical delegation appears to be a promising approach to address these challenges; however, it demands efficient communication structures and mechanisms to reinsure patients and caregivers receive a delegated, treatment-related task. Digital health care technologies hold the potential to render these novel processes effective and demand driven.ObjectiveThe goal of this study is to recreate the daily work routines of general practitioners (GPs) and medical assistants (MAs) to explore promising approaches for the digital moderation of delegation processes and to deepen the understanding of subjective and perceptual factors that influence their technology assessment and use.MethodsWe conducted a combination of 19 individual and group interviews with 12 GPs and 14 MAs, seeking to identify relevant technologies for delegation purposes as well as stakeholders' perceptions of their effectiveness. Furthermore, a web-based survey was conducted asking the interviewees to order identified technologies based on their assessed applicability in multi-actor patient care. Interview data were analyzed using a three-fold inductive coding procedure. Multidimensional scaling was applied to analyze and visualize the survey data, leading to a triangulation of the results.ResultsOur results suggest that digital mediation of delegation underlies complex, reciprocal processes and biases that need to be identified and analyzed to improve the development and distribution of innovative technologies and to improve our understanding of technology use in team-based primary care. Nevertheless, medical delegation enhanced by digital technologies, such as video consultations, portable electrocardiograms, or telemedical stethoscopes, can counteract current challenges in primary care because of its unique ability to ensure both personal, patient-centered care for patients and create efficient and needs-based treatment processes.ConclusionsTechnology-mediated delegation appears to be a promising approach to implement innovative, case-sensitive, and cost-effective ways to treat patients within the paradigm of primary care. The relevance of such innovative approaches increases with the tremendous need for differentiated and effective care, such as during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. For the successful and sustainable adoption of innovative technologies, MAs represent essential team members. In their role as mediators between GPs and patients, MAs are potentially able to counteract patients' resistance toward using innovative technology and compensate for patients' limited access to technology and care facilities.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders such as depression are common, and an estimated 264 million people are affected by them throughout the world. In recent years, studies on digital health interventions to treat mental disorders have shown evidence of their efficacy, and interest in using them has increased as a result. In the primary care setting, depression and anxiety are the two most frequently diagnosed and treated mental disorders. When they do not refer them to specialists, primary care professionals such as general practitioners treat patients with mental disorders themselves but have insufficient time to treat them adequately. Furthermore, there is a shortage of psychotherapists and those that exist have long waiting lists for an appointment. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review is to explore the attitudes of primary care professionals towards the use of digital health interventions in the treatment of patients with mental disorders. Their attitudes will provide an indication whether digital mental health interventions can effectively complement standard care in the primary care setting.Methods and analysisWe searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published in English, German, Spanish, Russian, French and Dutch after January 2010 for inclusion in the review. The included studies must involve digital mental health interventions conducted via computer and/or mobile devices in the primary care setting. The search was conducted in July 2020 in the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and extract data. We will use the 'Integrated methodology' framework to combine both quantitative and qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results of the mixed methods systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020188879.