Measures of Organizational Culture and Climate in Primary Care: a Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Primary care is increasingly contributing to improving the quality of patient care. This has imposed significant demands on clinicians with rising needs and limited resources. Organizational culture and climate have been found to be crucial in improving workforce well-being and hence quality of care. The objectives of this study are to identify organizational culture and climate measures used in primary care from 2008 to 2019 and evaluate their psychometric properties.Methods
Data sources include PubMed, PsycINFO, HAPI, CINAHL, and Mental Measurements Yearbook. Bibliographies of relevant articles were reviewed and a cited reference search in Scopus was performed. Eligibility criteria include primary health care professionals, primary care settings, and use of measures representing the general concept of organizational culture and climate. Consensus-Based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines were followed to evaluate individual studies for methodological quality, rate results of measurement properties, qualitatively pool studies by measure, and grade evidence.Results
Of 1745 initial studies, 42 studies met key study inclusion criteria, with 27 measures available for review (16 for organizational culture, 11 for organizational climate). There was considerable variability in measures, both conceptually and in psychometric quality. Many reported limited or no psychometric information.Discussion
Notable measures selected for frequent use and strength and applicability of measurement properties include the Culture Questionnaire adapted for health care settings, Practice Culture Assessment, and Medical Group Practice Culture Assessment for organizational culture. Notable climate measures include the Nurse Practitioner Primary Care Organizational Climate Questionnaire, Practice Climate Survey, and Task and Relational Climate Scale. This synthesis and appraisal of organizational culture and climate measures can help investigators make informed decisions in choosing a measure or deciding to develop a new one. In terms of limitations, ratings should be considered conservative due to adaptations of the COSMIN protocol for clinician populations.Prospero registration number
CRD 42019133117.
SUBMITTER: Hsiung KS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7878641 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportancePrimary care panel size plays an increasing role in measuring primary care provider (ie, physicians and advanced practice providers, which include nurse practitioners and physician assistants) workload, setting practice capacity, and determining pay and can influence quality of care, access, and burnout. However, reported panel sizes vary widely.ObjectiveTo identify how panels are defined, the degree of variation in these definitions, the consequences of different definitions of panel size, and research on strengths of different approaches.Evidence reviewFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, and Dissertations and Theses Global databases were searched from inception to April 28, 2021, for subject headings and text words to capture concepts of primary care panel size. Article review and data abstraction were performed independently by 2 reviewers. Main outcomes reported included rules for adding or removing patients from panels, rules for measuring primary care provider resources, consequences of different rules on reported panel size, and research on advantages and disadvantages of different rules.FindingsThe literature search yielded 1687 articles, with 294 potentially relevant articles and 74 containing relevant data. Specific practices were identified from 29 health care systems and 5 empanelment implementation guides. Patients were most commonly empaneled after 1 primary care visit (24 of 34 [70.6%]), but some were empaneled only after several visits (5 [14.8%]), enrollment in a health plan (4 [11.8%]) or any visit to the health care system (1 [3.0%]). Patients were removed when no visit had occurred in a specified look-back period, which varied from 12 to 42 months. Regarding primary care provider resources, half of organizations assigned advanced practice providers independent panels and half had them share panels with a physician, increasing the physician's panel by 50% to 100%. Analyses demonstrated that changes in individual rules for adding patients, removing patients, or estimating primary care provider resources could increase reported panel size from 20% to 100%, without change in actual primary care provider workload. No research was found investigating advantages of different definitions.Conclusions and relevanceMuch variation exists in how panels are defined, and this variation can have substantial consequences on reported panel size. Research is needed on how to define primary care panels to best identify active patients, which could contribute to a widely accepted standard approach to panel definition.
| S-EPMC9012968 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient safety in primary care is an emerging field of research with a growing evidence base in western countries but little has been explored in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) including the Sultanate of Oman. This study aimed to review the literature on the safety culture and patient safety measures used globally to inform the development of safety culture among health care workers in primary care with a particular focus on the Middle East.MethodsA systematic review of the literature. Searches were undertaken using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2000 to 2014. Terms defining safety culture were combined with terms identifying patient safety and primary care.ResultsThe database searches identified 3072 papers that were screened for inclusion in the review. After the screening and verification, data were extracted from 28 papers that described safety culture in primary care. The global distribution of the articles is as follows: the Netherlands (7), the United States (5), Germany (4), the United Kingdom (1), Australia, Canada and Brazil (two for each country), and with one each from Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The characteristics of the included studies were grouped under the following themes: safety culture in primary care, incident reporting, safety climate and adverse events. The most common theme from 2011 onwards was the assessment of safety culture in primary care (13 studies, 46%). The most commonly used safety culture assessment tool is the Hospital survey on patient safety culture (HSOPSC) which has been used in developing countries in the Middle East.ConclusionsThis systematic review reveals that the most important first step is the assessment of safety culture in primary care which will provide a basic understanding to safety-related perceptions of health care providers. The HSOPSC has been commonly used in Kuwait, Turkey, and Iran.
| S-EPMC6026504 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: To review and characterize existing health care efficiency measures in order to facilitate a common understanding about the adequacy of these methods. DATA SOURCES: Review of the MedLine and EconLit databases for articles published from 1990 to 2008, as well as search of the "gray" literature for additional measures developed by private organizations. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a systematic review for existing efficiency measures. We classified the efficiency measures by perspective, outputs, inputs, methods used, and reporting of scientific soundness. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 265 measures in the peer-reviewed literature and eight measures in the gray literature, with little overlap between the two sets of measures. Almost all of the measures did not explicitly consider the quality of care. Thus, if quality varies substantially across groups, which is likely in some cases, the measures reflect only the costs of care, not efficiency. Evidence on the measures' scientific soundness was mostly lacking: evidence on reliability or validity was reported for six measures (2.3 percent) and sensitivity analyses were reported for 67 measures (25.3 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Efficiency measures have been subjected to few rigorous evaluations of reliability and validity, and methods of accounting for quality of care in efficiency measurement are not well developed at this time. Use of these measures without greater understanding of these issues is likely to engender resistance from providers and could lead to unintended consequences.
| S-EPMC2699907 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND: Continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods are widely used in healthcare; however, the effectiveness of the methods is variable, and evidence about the extent to which contextual and other factors modify effects is limited. Investigating the relationship between these factors and CQI outcomes poses challenges for those evaluating CQI, among the most complex of which relate to the measurement of modifying factors. We aimed to provide guidance to support the selection of measurement instruments by systematically collating, categorising, and reviewing quantitative self-report instruments. METHODS: DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments, reference lists of systematic reviews, and citations and references of the main report of instruments. STUDY SELECTION: The scope of the review was determined by a conceptual framework developed to capture factors relevant to evaluating CQI in primary care (the InQuIRe framework). Papers reporting development or use of an instrument measuring a construct encompassed by the framework were included. Data extracted included instrument purpose; theoretical basis, constructs measured and definitions; development methods and assessment of measurement properties. Analysis and synthesis: We used qualitative analysis of instrument content and our initial framework to develop a taxonomy for summarising and comparing instruments. Instrument content was categorised using the taxonomy, illustrating coverage of the InQuIRe framework. Methods of development and evidence of measurement properties were reviewed for instruments with potential for use in primary care. RESULTS: We identified 186 potentially relevant instruments, 152 of which were analysed to develop the taxonomy. Eighty-four instruments measured constructs relevant to primary care, with content measuring CQI implementation and use (19 instruments), organizational context (51 instruments), and individual factors (21 instruments). Forty-one instruments were included for full review. Development methods were often pragmatic, rather than systematic and theory-based, and evidence supporting measurement properties was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Many instruments are available for evaluating CQI, but most require further use and testing to establish their measurement properties. Further development and use of these measures in evaluations should increase the contribution made by individual studies to our understanding of CQI and enhance our ability to synthesise evidence for informing policy and practice.
| S-EPMC3573896 | biostudies-other
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This systematic review aimed to (a) provide an overview of existing quality measures in the field of oral health care, and to (b) evaluate the scientific soundness and applicability of these quality measures. METHODS:A systematic search was conducted in three electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE (via OVID) and LILACS (via BIREME). The search was restricted to articles published between 2002 and 2018. Publications reporting on the development process or clinimetric properties of oral health care quality measures for outpatient oral health care in dental practices were included. The identified publications reporting on oral health care quality measures were critically appraised with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation 2.0 (AIRE 2.0) instrument to evaluate the soundness and applicability of the measures. RESULTS:The search strategy resulted in 2541 unique and potentially relevant articles. In total, 24 publications were included yielding 215 quality measures. The critical appraisal showed a large variation in the quality of the included publications (AIRE scores ranging from 38 to 78 out of 80 possible points). The majority of measures (n = 71) referred to treatment and preventive services. Comparably, few measures referred to the domain patient safety (n = 3). The development process of measures often exhibited a lack of involvement of patients and dental professionals. Few projects reported on the validity (n = 2) and reliability (n = 3) of the measures. Four projects piloted the measures for implementation in practice. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review provides an overview of the status quo with respect to existing quality measures in oral health care. Potential opportunities include the piloting and testing of quality measures and the establishment of suitable information systems that allow the provision of transparent routine feedback on the quality of oral health care.
| S-EPMC7379624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn the domain of health services, little research has focused on how organizational culture, specifically internal market-oriented cultures (IMOCs), are associated with organizational climate resources, support for autonomy (SA), and whether and how IMOCs and SA are either individually or in combination related to employee perceptions of the attractiveness of the organization and their level of innovative behavior. These knowledge gaps in previous research motivated this study.MethodsA conceptual model was tested on a sample (N = 1008) of hospital employees. Partial least-squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed to test the conceptual models, using the SmartPLS 3 software. To test the mediator effect, a bootstrapping test was used to determine whether the direct and indirect effects were statistically significant, and when combining two tests, to determine the type of mediator effect.ResultsThe results can be summarized as four key findings: i) organizational culture (referring to an IMOC) was positively and directly related to SA (β = 0.87) and organizational attractiveness (β = 0.45); ii) SA was positively and directly related to both organizational attractiveness (β = 0.22) and employee individual innovative behavior (β = 0.37); iii) The relationships between an IMOC, SA, and employee innovative behavior were all mediated through organizational attractiveness; and iv) SA mediated the relationship between the IMOC and organizational attractiveness as well as that between the IMOC and employee innovative behavior.ConclusionsOrganizational culture, IMOC, organizational climate resources, and SA were highly correlated and necessary drivers of employee perceptions of organizational attractiveness and their innovative behavior. Managers of hospitals should consider IMOC and SA as two organizational resources that are potentially manageable and controllable. Consequently, managers should actively invest in these resources. Such investments will lead to resource capitalization that will improve both employee perceptions of organizational attractiveness as well as their innovative behavior.
| S-EPMC9102259 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS:Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.
| S-EPMC6475823 | biostudies-other
Project description:ContextInteprofessional collaboration (IPC) between biomedically trained doctors (BMD) and traditional, complementary and alternative medicine practitioners (TCAMP) is an essential element in the development of successful integrative healthcare (IHC) services. This systematic review aims to identify organizational strategies that would facilitate this process.MethodsWe searched 4 international databases for qualitative studies on the theme of BMD-TCAMP IPC, supplemented with a purposive search of 31 health services and TCAM journals. Methodological quality of included studies was assessed using published checklist. Results of each included study were synthesized using a framework approach, with reference to the Structuration Model of Collaboration.FindingsThirty-seven studies of acceptable quality were included. The main driver for developing integrative healthcare was the demand for holistic care from patients. Integration can best be led by those trained in both paradigms. Bridge-building activities, positive promotion of partnership and co-location of practices are also beneficial for creating bonding between team members. In order to empower the participation of TCAMP, the perceived power differentials need to be reduced. Also, resources should be committed to supporting team building, collaborative initiatives and greater patient access. Leadership and funding from central authorities are needed to promote the use of condition-specific referral protocols and shared electronic health records. More mature IHC programs usually formalize their evaluation process around outcomes that are recognized both by BMD and TCAMP.ConclusionsThe major themes emerging from our review suggest that successful collaborative relationships between BMD and TCAMP are similar to those between other health professionals, and interventions which improve the effectiveness of joint working in other healthcare teams with may well be transferable to promote better partnership between the paradigms. However, striking a balance between the different practices and preserving the epistemological stance of TCAM will remain the greatest challenge in successful integration.
| S-EPMC3510174 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Diagnostic uncertainty is one of the largest contributory factors to the occurrence of diagnostic errors across most specialties in medicine and arguably uncertainty is greatest in primary care due to the undifferentiated symptoms primary care physicians are often presented with. Physicians can respond to diagnostic uncertainty in various ways through the interplay of a series of cognitive, emotional and ethical reactions. The consequences of such uncertainty however can impact negatively upon the primary care practitioner, their patients and the wider healthcare system. Understanding the nature of the existing empirical literature in relation to managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary medical care is a logical and necessary first step in order to understand what solutions are already available and/or to aid the development of any training or feedback aimed at better managing this uncertainty. This review is the first to characterize the existing empirical literature on managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care.Sixteen databases were systematically searched from inception to present with no restrictions. Hand searches of relevant websites and reference lists of included studies were also conducted. Two authors conducted abstract/article screening and data extraction. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to.Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative and conceptual synthesis was undertaken under the premises of critical reviews. Results suggest that studies have focused on internal factors (traits, skills and strategies) associated with managing diagnostic uncertainty with only one external intervention identified. Cognitive factors ranged from the influences of epistemological viewpoints to practical approaches such as greater knowledge of the patient, utilizing resources to hand and using appropriate safety netting techniques. Emotional aspects of uncertainty management included clinicians embracing uncertainty and working with provisional diagnoses. Ethical aspects of uncertainty management centered on communicating diagnostic uncertainties with patients. Personality traits and characteristics influenced each of the three domains.There is little empirical evidence on how uncertainty is managed in general practice. However we highlight how the extant literature can be conceptualised into cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects of uncertainty which may help clinicians be more aware of their own biases as well as provide a platform for future research.PROSPERO registration: CRD42015027555.
| S-EPMC5545872 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundThe translation of research into practices has been incomplete. Organizational readiness for change (ORC) is a potential facilitator of effective knowledge translation (KT). However we know little about the best way to assess ORC. Therefore, we sought to systematically review ORC measurement instruments.MethodsWe searched for published studies in bibliographic databases (Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science, etc.) up to November 1st, 2012. We included publications that developed ORC measures and/or empirically assessed ORC using an instrument at the organizational level in the health care context. We excluded articles if they did not refer specifically to ORC, did not concern the health care domain or were limited to individual-level change readiness. We focused on identifying the psychometric properties of instruments that were developed to assess readiness in an organization prior to implementing KT interventions in health care. We used the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing to assess the psychometric properties of identified ORC measurement instruments.FindingsWe found 26 eligible instruments described in 39 publications. According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, 18 (69%) of a total of 26 measurement instruments presented both validity and reliability criteria. The Texas Christian University -ORC (TCU-ORC) scale reported the highest instrument validity with a score of 4 out of 4. Only one instrument, namely the Modified Texas Christian University - Director version (TCU-ORC-D), reported a reliability score of 2 out of 3. No information was provided regarding the reliability and validity of five (19%) instruments.ConclusionOur findings indicate that there are few valid and reliable ORC measurement instruments that could be applied to KT in the health care sector. The TCU-ORC instrument presents the best evidence in terms of validity testing. Future studies using this instrument could provide more knowledge on its relevance to diverse clinical contexts.
| S-EPMC4256226 | biostudies-literature