An interdisciplinary team communication framework and its application to healthcare 'e-teams' systems design

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are few studies that examine the processes that interdisciplinary teams engage in and how we can design health information systems (HIS) to support those team processes. This was an exploratory study with two purposes: (1) To develop a framework for interdisciplinary team communication based on structures, processes and outcomes that were identified as having occurred during weekly team meetings. (2) To use the framework to guide 'e-teams' HIS design to support interdisciplinary team meeting communication.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An ethnographic approach was used to collect data on two interdisciplinary teams. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the data according to structures, processes and outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We present details for team meta-concepts of structures, processes and outcomes and the concepts and sub concepts within each meta-concept. We also provide an exploratory framework for interdisciplinary team communication and describe how the framework can guide HIS design to support 'e-teams'.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The structures, processes and outcomes that describe interdisciplinary teams are complex and often occur in a non-linear fashion. Electronic data support, process facilitation and team video conferencing are three HIS tools that can enhance team function.</p

Benefit-risk of Patients' Online Access to their Medical Records: Consensus Exercise of an International Expert Group

BACKGROUND:  Patients' access to their computerised medical records (CMRs) is a legal right in many countries. However, little is reported about the benefit-risk associated with patients' online access to their CMRs. OBJECTIVE:  To conduct a consensus exercise to assess the impact of patients' online access to their CMRs on the quality of care as defined in six domains by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). METHOD:  A five-round Delphi study was conducted. Round One explored experts' (n = 37) viewpoints on providing patients with access to their CMRs. Round Two rated the appropriateness of statements arising from Round One (n = 16). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n = 13) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups. Two additional rounds, a survey of the revised consensus statements and an online workshop, were carried out to further refine consensus statements. RESULTS:  Thirty-seven responses from Round One were used as a basis to initially develop 15 statements which were categorised using IoM's domains of care quality. The experts agreed that providing patients online access to their CMRs for bookings, results, and prescriptions increased efficiency and improved the quality of medical records. Experts also anticipated that patients would proactively use their online access to share data with different health care providers, including emergencies. However, experts differed on whether access to limited or summary data was more useful to patients than accessing their complete records. They thought online access would change recording practice, but they were unclear about the benefit-risk of high and onerous levels of security. The 5-round process, finally, produced 16 consensus statements. CONCLUSION:  Patients' online access to their CMRs should be part of all CMR systems. It improves the process of health care, but further evidence is required about outcomes. Online access improves efficiency of bookings and other services. However, there is scope to improve many of the processes of care it purports to support, particularly the provision of a more effective interface and the protection of the vulnerable

Implementation of symptom protocols for nurses providing telephone-based cancer symptom management: a comparative case study

Background: The pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) team developed 13 evidence-informed protocols for symptom management. Aim: To build an effective and sustainable approach for implementing the COSTaRS protocols for nurses providing telephone-based symptom support to cancer patients. Methods: A comparative case study was guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework. Three cases were created for three Canadian oncology programs that have nurses providing telephone support. Teams of researchers and knowledge users: (a) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing protocol use, (b) adapted protocols for local use, (c) intervened to address barriers, (d) monitored use, and (e) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing sustained use. Analysis was within and across cases. Results: At baseline, >85% nurses rated protocols positively but barriers were identified (64-80% needed training). Patients and families identified similar barriers and thought protocols would enhance consistency among nurses teaching self-management. Twenty-two COSTaRS workshops reached 85% to 97% of targeted nurses (N = 119). Nurses felt more confident with symptom management and using the COSTaRS protocols (p < .01). Protocol adaptations addressed barriers (e.g., health records approval, creating pocket versions, distributing with telephone messages). Chart audits revealed that protocols used were documented for 11% to 47% of patient calls. Sustained use requires organizational alignment and ongoing leadership support. Linking Evidence to Action: Protocol uptake was similar to trials that have evaluated tailored interventions to improve professional practice by overcoming identified barriers. Collaborating with knowledge users facilitated interpretation of findings, aided protocol adaptation, and supported implementation. Protocol implementation in nursing requires a tailored approach. A multifaceted intervention approach increased nurses' use of evidence-informed protocols during telephone calls with patients about symptoms. Training and other interventions improved nurses' confidence with using COSTaRS protocols and their uptake was evident in some documented telephone calls. Protocols could be adapted for use by patients and nurses globally.Dawn Stacey, Esther Green, Barbara Ballantyne, Joy Tarasuk, Myriam Skrutkowski, Meg Carley, Kim Chapman, Craig Kuziemsky, Erin Kolari, Brenda Sabo, Andréanne Saucier, Tara Shaw, Lucie Tardif, Tracy Truant, Greta G. Cummings, Doris Howel

Extending the team component of the Latimer ethical decision-making model for palliative care

Mary Ellen Purkis1, Elizabeth Borycki1,2, Craig Kuziemsky3, Fraser Black4, Denise Cloutier-Fisher5, Lee Ann Fox6, Patricia MacKenzie7, Ann Syme1,8, Coby Tschanz1,41School of Nursing, 2School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia; 3Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario; 4Victoria Hospice Society, Victoria, British Columbia; 5Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia; 6Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario; 7School of Social Work, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia; 8British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver Island Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, CanadaBackground: Each year more than 240,000 Canadians die from terminal and chronic illnesses. It is estimated that 62% of those deaths require palliative care. Palliative care is a specialized domain of health professional team practice that requires discipline-specific knowledge, skills, judgment, and expertise in order to address patient hopes, wishes, symptoms, and suffering. With the emergence of palliative care as a specialized area of interdisciplinary practice, new practice models have also emerged, eg, the Latimer ethical decision-making model for palliative care. The purpose of this research was to undertake a descriptive ethnographic field study of palliative care team practices to understand better the interdisciplinary team communication and the issues that arise when members of different health professions work together as a team.Methods: Study data were collected by observing and videotaping palliative care team meetings. Data were then analyzed using direct content analysis.Results: The study findings substantiated many of the team practice concepts outlined in Latimer&amp;#39;s model. Palliative care teams engage in a number of processes that address patient symptoms, suffering, hopes, and plans. However, several new findings also emerged from the data that were not explicit in Latimer&amp;#39;s original model. Teams employed five additional emergent team processes when addressing patient symptoms and suffering while attempting to fulfill patient hopes and plans. Those five team processes included explicating practice norms, leadership, provider assumptions, interdisciplinary teaching, and patient safety.Conclusion: Although many team processes have been identified by practice models in the literature, there is a need to study the applicability of these models empirically to validate their representation of aspects of team practice.Keywords: interprofessional team practice, palliative care, ethics, ethnograph

Benefit-risk of Patients' Online Access to their Medical Records: Consensus Exercise of an International Expert Group

BACKGROUND:  Patients' access to their computerised medical records (CMRs) is a legal right in many countries. However, little is reported about the benefit-risk associated with patients' online access to their CMRs

Benefit-risk of patients' online access to their medical records: Consensus exercise of an international expert group

Background: Patients' access to their computerised medical records (CMRs) is a legal right in many countries. However, little is reported about the benefit-risk associated with patients' online access to their CMRs. Objective: To conduct a consensus exercise to assess the impact of patients' online access to their CMRs on the quality of care as defined in six domains by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Method: A five-round Delphi study was conducted. Round One explored experts' (n = 37) viewpoints on providing patients with access to their CMRs. Round Two rated the appropriateness of statements arising from Round One (n = 16). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n = 13) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups. Two additional rounds, a survey of the revised consensus statements and an online workshop, were carried out to further refine consensus statements. Results: Thirty-seven responses from Round One were used as a basis to initially develop 15 statements which were categorised using IoM's domains of care quality. The experts agreed that providing patients online access to their CMRs for bookings, results, and prescriptions increased efficiency and improved the quality of medical records. Experts also anticipated that patients would proactively use their online access to share data with different health care providers, including emergencies. However, experts differed on whether access to limited or summary data was more useful to patients than accessing their complete records. They thought online access would change recording practice, but they were unclear about the benefit-risk of high and onerous levels of security. The 5-round process, finally, produced 16 consensus statements. Conclusion: Patients' online access to their CMRs should be part of all CMR systems. It improves the process of health care, but further evidence is required about outcomes. Online access improves efficiency of bookings and other services. However, there is scope to improve many of the processes of care it purports to support, particularly the provision of a more effective interface and the protection of the vulnerable.</p

Benefit-risk of patients' online access to their medical records: Consensus exercise of an international expert group

Background: Patients' access to their computerised medical records (CMRs) is a legal right in many countries. However, little is reported about the benefit-risk associated with patients' online access to their CMRs. Objective: To conduct a consensus exercise to assess the impact of patients' online access to their CMRs on the quality of care as defined in six domains by the Institute of Medicine (IoM), now the National Academy of Medicine (NAM). Method: A five-round Delphi study was conducted. Round One explored experts' (n = 37) viewpoints on providing patients with access to their CMRs. Round Two rated the appropriateness of statements arising from Round One (n = 16). The third round was an online panel discussion of findings (n = 13) with the members of both the International Medical Informatics Association and the European Federation of Medical Informatics Primary Health Care Informatics Working Groups. Two additional rounds, a survey of the revised consensus statements and an online workshop, were carried out to further refine consensus statements. Results: Thirty-seven responses from Round One were used as a basis to initially develop 15 statements which were categorised using IoM's domains of care quality. The experts agreed that providing patients online access to their CMRs for bookings, results, and prescriptions increased efficiency and improved the quality of medical records. Experts also anticipated that patients would proactively use their online access to share data with different health care providers, including emergencies. However, experts differed on whether access to limited or summary data was more useful to patients than accessing their complete records. They thought online access would change recording practice, but they were unclear about the benefit-risk of high and onerous levels of security. The 5-round process, finally, produced 16 consensus statements. Conclusion: Patients' online access to their CMRs should be part of all CMR systems. It improves the process of health care, but further evidence is required about outcomes. Online access improves efficiency of bookings and other services. However, there is scope to improve many of the processes of care it purports to support, particularly the provision of a more effective interface and the protection of the vulnerable.</p