When Team Conflicts Threaten Quality of Care: A Study of Health Care Professionals' Experiences and Perceptions

Objectives: To explore professionals' experiences and perceptions of whether, how, and what types of conflicts affected the quality of patient care. Patients and Methods: We conducted 82 semistructured interviews with randomly selected health care professionals in a Swiss teaching hospital (October 2014 and March 2016). Participants related stories of team conflicts (intra-/interprofessional, among protagonists at the same or different hierarchical levels) and the perceived consequences for patient care. We analyzed quality of care using the dimensions of care proposed by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity). Results: Seventy-seven of 130 conflicts had no perceived consequences for patient care. Of the 53 conflicts (41%) with potential perceived consequences, the most common were care not provided in a timely manner to patients (delays, longer hospitalization), care not being patient-centered, and less efficient care. Intraprofessional conflicts were linked with less patient-centered care, whereas interprofessional conflicts were linked with less timely care. Conflicts among protagonists at the same hierarchical level were linked with less timely care and less patient-centered care. In some situations, perceived unsatisfactory quality of care generated team conflicts. Conclusion: Based on participants' assessments, 4 of 10 conflict stories had potential consequences for the quality of patient care. The most common consequences were failure to provide timely, patient-centered, and efficient care. Management of hospitals should consider team conflicts as a potential threat to quality of care and support conflict management programs

A concordance-based study to assess doctors’ and nurses’ mental models in Internal Medicine

Interprofessional collaboration between doctors and nurses is based on team mental models, in particular for each professional's roles. Our objective was to identify factors influencing concordance on the expectations of doctors' and nurses' roles and responsibilities in an Internal Medicine ward. Using a dataset of 196 doctor-nurse pairs (14x14 = 196), we analyzed choices and prioritized management actions of 14 doctors and 14 nurses in six clinical nurse role scenarios, and in five doctor role scenarios (6 options per scenario). In logistic regression models with a non-nested correlation structure, we evaluated concordance among doctors and nurses, and adjusted for potential confounders (including prior experience in Internal Medicine, acuteness of case and gender). Concordance was associated with number of female professionals (adjusted OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.73), for acute situations (adjusted OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.62), and in doctor role scenarios (adjusted OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.65). Prior experience and country of training were not significant predictors of concordance. In conclusion, our concordance-based approach helped us identify areas of lower concordance in expected doctor-nurse roles and responsibilities, particularly in non-acute situations, which can be targeted by future interprofessional, educational interventions