Project description:BackgroundInterdisciplinary team working is of paramount importance in the reform of primary care in order to provide cost-effective and comprehensive care. However, international research shows that it is not routine practice in many healthcare jurisdictions. It is imperative to understand levers and barriers to the implementation process. This review examines interdisciplinary team working in practice, in primary care, from the perspective of service providers and analyses 1 barriers and facilitators to implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care and 2 the main research gaps.Methods and findingsAn integrative review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Following a search of 10 international databases, 8,827 titles were screened for relevance and 49 met the criteria. Quality of evidence was appraised using predetermined criteria. Data were analysed following the principles of framework analysis using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which has four constructs: sense making, enrolment, enactment, and appraisal. The literature is dominated by a focus on interdisciplinary working between physicians and nurses. There is a dearth of evidence about all NPT constructs apart from enactment. Physicians play a key role in encouraging the enrolment of others in primary care team working and in enabling effective divisions of labour in the team. The experience of interdisciplinary working emerged as a lever for its implementation, particularly where communication and respect were strong between professionals.ConclusionA key lever for interdisciplinary team working in primary care is to get professionals working together and to learn from each other in practice. However, the evidence base is limited as it does not reflect the experiences of all primary care professionals and it is primarily about the enactment of team working. We need to know much more about the experiences of the full network of primary care professionals regarding all aspects of implementation work.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015019362.

Project description:ObjectiveCommunication failures between clinicians lead to poor patient outcomes. Critically injured patients have multiple injured organ systems and require complex multidisciplinary care from a wide range of healthcare professionals and communication failures are abundantly common. This study sought to determine barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between the consulting trauma, intensive care unit (ICU) team and specialty consultants for critically injured patients at an urban, safety-net, level 1 trauma centre.DesignAn observational qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication.SettingWe conducted observations of daily rounds in two trauma surgical ICUs and recorded the most frequently consulted teams.ParticipantsKey informant interviews after presenting clinical vignettes as discussion prompts were conducted with a broad range of clinicians from the ICUs and physicians and nurse practitioners from the consultant teams who were identified during the observations. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data of these 10 interviews were combined with primary transcript data from prior study (25 interviews) and analysed together because of the same setting with same themes. Independent coding of the transcripts, with iterative reconciliation, was performed by two coders.Outcomes measuresFacilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary communication were identified.ResultsA total of 35 interview transcripts were analysed. Cardiology and interventional radiology were the most frequently consulted teams. Consulting and consultant clinicians reported that perceived accessibility from the team seeking a consultation and the consultant team impacted interdisciplinary communication. Accessibility had a physical dimension as well as a psychological dimension. Accessibility was demonstrated by responsiveness between clinicians of different disciplines and in turn facilitated interdisciplinary communication. Social norms, cognitive biases, hierarchy and relationships were reported as both facilitators and barriers to accessibility, and therefore, interdisciplinary communication.ConclusionAccessibility impacted interdisciplinary communication between the consulting and the consultant team.Article summaryElucidates barriers and facilitators to interdisciplinary communication between consulting and consultant teams.

Project description:BACKGROUNDOver the last decade, paediatric palliative care teams (PPCTs) have been introduced to support children with life-limiting diseases and their families and to ensure continuity, coordination and quality of paediatric palliative care (PPC). However, implementing a PPCT into an organisation is a challenge. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators reported by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in primary, secondary or tertiary care for implementing a newly initiated multidisciplinary PPCT to bridge the gap between hospital and home.METHODSThe Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI) was used to assess responses of 71 HCPs providing PPC to one or more of the 129 children included in a pilot study of a PPCT based at a university children's hospital. The MIDI (29 items) assessed barriers and facilitators to implementing the PPCT by using a 5-point scale (completely disagree to completely agree) and additional open-ended questions. Items to which ?20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree' and ?80% responded with 'agree/totally agree' were considered as barriers and facilitators, respectively. A general inductive approach was used for open-ended questions.RESULTSReported barriers to implementing a PPCT were related to the HCP's own organisation (e.g., no working arrangements related to use of the intervention [PPCT] registered, other organisational changes such as merger going on). Reported facilitators were mainly related to the intervention (correctness, simplicity, observability and relevancy) and the user scale (positive outcome expectations, patient satisfaction) and only once to the organisation scale (information accessibility). Additionally, HCPs expressed the need for clarity about tasks of the PPCT and reported having made a transition from feeling threatened by the PPCT to satisfaction about the PPCT.CONCLUSIONPositive experiences with the PPCT are a major facilitator for implementing a PPCT. Tailored organisational strategies such as working arrangements by management, concrete information about the PPCT itself and the type of support provided by the PPCT should be clearly communicated to involved HCPs to increase awareness about benefits of the PPCT and ensure a successful implementation. New PPCTs need protection and resources in their initial year to develop into experienced and qualified PPCTs.

Project description:BackgroundThe present review aimed to systematically identify and classify barriers and facilitators of conducting research with a team science approach.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Emerald, and ProQuest databases were searched for primary research studies conducted using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Studies examining barriers and facilitators of research with a team science approach were included in search. Two independent reviewers screened the texts, extracted and coded the data. Quality assessment was performed for all 35 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators were categorized within Human, Organization, and Technology model.ResultsA total of 35 studies from 9,381 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 42 barriers and 148 facilitators were identified. Human barriers were characteristics of the researchers, teaming skills, and time. We consider Human facilitators across nine sub-themes as follows: characteristics of the researchers, roles, goals, communication, trust, conflict, disciplinary distances, academic rank, and collaboration experience. The barriers related to organization were institutional policies, team science integration, and funding. Organizational facilitators were as follows: team science skills training, institutional policies, and evaluation. Facilitators in the field of technology included virtual readiness and data management, and the technology barriers were complexity of techniques and privacy issues.ConclusionsWe identified major barriers and facilitators for conducting research with team science approach. The findings have important connotations for ongoing and future implementation of this intervention strategy in research. The analysis of this review provides evidence to inform policy-makers, funding providers, researchers, and students on the existing barriers and facilitators of team science research.Trial registrationThis review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO database (PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021278704).

Project description:BackgroundRobots in healthcare are gaining increasing attention; however, their implementation is challenging due to the complexity of both interventions themselves and the contexts in which they are implemented. The objective of this integrative review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic systems in nursing.MethodsArticles published from 2002 to 2019 reporting on projects to implement robotic devices in nursing care were searched on Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL and databases on funded research projects (Community Research and Development Information Services and Technische Informationsbibliothek) and in journals for robotic research in November 2017 and July 2019 for an update. No restrictions regarding study designs were imposed. All included articles underwent quality assessments with design-specific critical appraisal tools. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework.ResultsAfter removing all duplicates, the search revealed 11 204 studies, of which 17 met the inclusion criteria and were included in the synthesis. The majority of the studies dealt with the implementation of robots designed to support individuals, either living at home or in nursing homes (n=11). The studies were conducted in Europe, the USA and New Zealand and were carried out in nursing homes, individual living environments, hospital units and laboratories. The quality of reporting and quality of evidence were low in most studies. The most frequently reported barriers were in socioeconomic and ethical domains and were within the implementation outcomes domain. The most frequently reported facilitators were related to the sociocultural context, implementation process and implementation strategies.DiscussionThis review identified barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of robotic devices in nursing within different dimensions. The results serve as a basis for the development of suitable implementation strategies to reduce potential barriers and promote the integration of elements to facilitate implementation.Prospero registration numberCRD42018073486.

Project description:BackgroundMany leaders in the field of chronic pain treatment consider interdisciplinary pain management programs to be the most effective treatments available for chronic pain. As programs are instituted and expanded to address demands for nonpharmacological chronic pain interventions, we need to better understand how patients experience program impacts, as well as the challenges and supports patients encounter in trying to maintain and build on intervention gains.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative evaluation of an interdisciplinary chronic pain coaching program at the Atlanta Veterans Affairs. A purposive sample of Veterans were engaged in interviews (n=41) and focus groups (n=20) to elicit patient outcomes and barriers and facilitators to sustainment of improvements. Transcripts were analyzed using matrix and thematic analyses.ResultsVeterans reported various outcomes. Most frequently they described adopting new self-care or lifestyle practices for pain management and health. They also often described accepting pain, being better able to adjust and set boundaries, feeling more in control, participating in life, and changing their medication use. A small portion of the sample reported no improvement in their conditions. When outcomes were examined as a whole, individuals described impacts that could be placed along a spectrum from whole life change to no change. Facilitators to maintenance of improvements included having building blocks (eg, carrying forward practices learned), support (eg, access to resources), and energy (eg, motivation), and improving incrementally. Challenges were not having building blocks (eg, life disruptions), support (eg, unknown follow-up options), and energy (eg, competing demands) and having an unbalanced rate of improvement.ConclusionMost Veterans identified experiencing multiple areas of improvement, especially learning about and taking up new pain and general health management skills. Ensuring participants can build on and find support for these outcomes when applying what they have learned in their dynamic social and physical worlds remains a challenge for this program and other relatively short-term interdisciplinary chronic pain interventions.

Dataset Information

Correction: Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: An integrative review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets