Using Ethnographic Methods to Understand Change in Interprofessional Practice

n/

Nurse–physician collaboration in general internal medicine : a synthesis of survey and ethnographic techniques

BACKGROUND Effective collaboration between hospital nurses and physicians is associated with patient safety, quality of care, and provider satisfaction. Mutual nurse–physician perceptions of one another’s collaboration are typically discrepant. Quantitative and qualitative studies frequently conclude that nurses experience lower satisfaction with nurse–physician collaboration than physicians. Mixed methods studies of nurse–physician collaboration are uncommon; results from one of the two approaches are seldom related to or reported in terms of the others. This paper aims to demonstrate the complementarity of quantitative and qualitative methods for understanding nurse–physician collaboration. METHODS In medicine wards of 5 hospitals, we surveyed nurses and physicians measuring three facets of collaboration— communication, accommodation, and isolation. In parallel we used shadowing and interviews to explore the quality of nurse–physician collaboration. Data were collected between June 2008 and June 2009. RESULTS The results indicated difference of nurse–physician ratings of one another’s communication was small and not statistically significant; communication timing and skill were reportedly challenging. Nurses perceived physicians as less accommodating than physicians perceived nurses (P\u3c.01) and the effect size was medium. Physicians’ independent schedules were problematic for nurses. Nurses felt more isolated from physicians than physicians from nurses (P\u3c.0001) and the difference was large in standardized units. Hierarchical relationships were related to nurses’ isolation; however this could be moderated by leadership support. CONCLUSION Our mixed-method approach indicates that longstanding maladaptive nurse–physician relationships persist in the inpatient setting, but not uniformly. Communication quality seems mutually acceptable, while accommodation and isolation are more problematic among nurses

Structuring communication relationships for interprofessional teamwork (SCRIPT): a cluster randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite a burgeoning interest in using interprofessional approaches to promote effective collaboration in health care, systematic reviews find scant evidence of benefit. This protocol describes the first cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) to design and evaluate an intervention intended to improve interprofessional collaborative communication and patient-centred care.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objective is to evaluate the effects of a four-component, hospital-based staff communication protocol designed to promote collaborative communication between healthcare professionals and enhance patient-centred care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The study is a multi-centre mixed-methods cluster randomized controlled trial involving twenty clinical teaching teams (CTTs) in general internal medicine (GIM) divisions of five Toronto tertiary-care hospitals. CTTs will be randomly assigned either to receive an intervention designed to improve interprofessional collaborative communication, or to continue usual communication practices.</p> <p>Non-participant naturalistic observation, shadowing, and semi-structured, qualitative interviews were conducted to explore existing patterns of interprofessional collaboration in the CTTs, and to support intervention development. Interviews and shadowing will continue during intervention delivery in order to document interactions between the intervention settings and adopters, and changes in interprofessional communication.</p> <p>The primary outcome is the rate of unplanned hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes are length of stay (LOS); adherence to evidence-based prescription drug therapy; patients' satisfaction with care; self-report surveys of CTT staff perceptions of interprofessional collaboration; and frequency of calls to paging devices. Outcomes will be compared on an intention-to-treat basis using adjustment methods appropriate for data from a cluster randomized design.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Pre-intervention qualitative analysis revealed that a substantial amount of interprofessional interaction lacks key core elements of collaborative communication such as self-introduction, description of professional role, and solicitation of other professional perspectives. Incorporating these findings, a four-component intervention was designed with a goal of creating a culture of communication in which the fundamentals of collaboration become a routine part of interprofessional interactions during unstructured work periods on GIM wards.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Registered with National Institutes of Health as NCT00466297.</p

Interprofessional communication with hospitalist and consultant physicians in general internal medicine : a qualitative study

This study helps to improve our understanding of the collaborative environment in GIM, comparing the communication styles and strategies of hospitalist and consultant physicians, as well as the experiences of providers working with them. The implications of this research are globally important for understanding how to create opportunities for physicians and their colleagues to meaningfully and consistently participate in interprofessional communication which has been shown to improve patient, provider, and organizational outcomes

Disengaged : a qualitative study of communication and collaboration between physicians and other professions on general internal medicine wards

BACKGROUND: Poor interprofessional communication in hospital is deemed to cause significant patient harm. Although recognition of this issue is growing, protocols are being implemented to solve this problem without empirical research on the interprofessional communication interactions that directly underpin patient care. We report here the first large qualitative study of directly-observed talk amongst professions in general internal medicine wards, describing the content and usual conversation partners, with the aim of understanding the mechanisms by which current patterns of interprofessional communications may impact on patient care. METHODS: Qualitative study with 155 hours of data-collection, including observation and one-on-one shadowing, ethnographic and semi-structured interviews with physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals in the General Internal Medicine (GIM) wards of two urban teaching hospitals in Canada. Data were coded and analysed thematically with a focus on collaborative interactions between health professionals in both interprofessional and intraprofessional contexts. RESULTS: Physicians in GIM wards communicated with other professions mainly in structured rounds. Physicians' communications were terse, consisting of reports, requests for information, or patient-related orders. Non-physician observations were often overlooked and interprofessional discussion was rare. Intraprofessional interactions among allied health professions, and between nursing, as well as interprofessional interactions between nursing and allied health were frequent and deliberative in character, but very few such discussions involved physicians, whose deliberative interactions were almost entirely with other physicians. CONCLUSION: Without interprofessional problem identification and discussion, physician decisions take place in isolation. While this might be suited to protocol-driven care for patients whose conditions were simple and courses predictable, it may fail complex patients in GIM who often need tailored, interprofessional decisions on their care.Interpersonal communication training to increase interprofessional deliberation may improve efficiency, patient-centredness and outcomes of care in hospitals. Also, electronic communications tools which reduce cognitive burden and facilitate the sharing of clinical observations and orders could help physicians to engage more in non-medical deliberation. Such interventions should take into account real-world power differentials between physicians and other health professions

Successful implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery programme for elective colorectal surgery: a process evaluation of champions’ experiences

Abstract Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) is a multimodal evidence-based approach to patient care that has become the standard in elective colorectal surgery. Implemented globally, ERAS programmes represent a considerable change in practice for many surgical care providers. Our current understanding of specific implementation and sustainability challenges is limited. In January 2013, we began a 2-year ERAS implementation for elective colorectal surgery in 15 academic hospitals in Ontario. The purpose of this study was to understand the process enablers and barriers that influenced the success of ERAS implementation in these centres with a view towards supporting sustainable change. Methods A qualitative process evaluation was conducted from June to September 2014. Semi-structured interviews with implementation champions were completed, and an iterative inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Following a data-driven analysis, the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) was used as an analytic framework to understand the impact of various implementation processes. The NPT constructs were used as sensitizing concepts, reviewed against existing data categories for alignment and fit. Results Fifty-eight participants were included: 15 surgeons, 14 anaesthesiologists, 15 nurses, and 14 project coordinators. A number of process-related implementation enablers were identified: champions’ belief in the value of the programme, the fit and cohesion of champions and their teams locally and provincially, a bottom-up approach to stakeholder engagement targeting organizational relationship-building, receptivity and support of division leaders, and the normalization of ERAS as everyday practice. Technical enablers identified included effective integration with existing clinical systems and using audit and feedback to report to hospital stakeholders. There was an overall optimism that ERAS implementation would be sustained, accompanied by concern about long-term organizational support. Conclusions Successful ERAS implementation is achieved by a complex series of cognitive and social processes which previously have not been well described. Using the Normalization Process Theory as a framework, this analysis demonstrates the importance of champion coherence, external and internal relationship building, and the strategic management of a project’s organization-level visibility as important to ERAS uptake and sustainability

Disengaged: a qualitative study of communication and collaboration between physicians and other professions on general internal medicine wards

Abstract Background Poor interprofessional communication in hospital is deemed to cause significant patient harm. Although recognition of this issue is growing, protocols are being implemented to solve this problem without empirical research on the interprofessional communication interactions that directly underpin patient care. We report here the first large qualitative study of directly-observed talk amongst professions in general internal medicine wards, describing the content and usual conversation partners, with the aim of understanding the mechanisms by which current patterns of interprofessional communications may impact on patient care. Methods Qualitative study with 155 hours of data-collection, including observation and one-on-one shadowing, ethnographic and semi-structured interviews with physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals in the General Internal Medicine (GIM) wards of two urban teaching hospitals in Canada. Data were coded and analysed thematically with a focus on collaborative interactions between health professionals in both interprofessional and intraprofesional contexts. Results Physicians in GIM wards communicated with other professions mainly in structured rounds. Physicians’ communications were terse, consisting of reports, requests for information, or patient-related orders. Non-physician observations were often overlooked and interprofessional discussion was rare. Intraprofessional interactions among allied health professions, and between nursing, as well as interprofessional interactions between nursing and allied health were frequent and deliberative in character, but very few such discussions involved physicians, whose deliberative interactions were almost entirely with other physicians. Conclusion Without interprofessional problem identification and discussion, physician decisions take place in isolation. While this might be suited to protocol-driven care for patients whose conditions were simple and courses predictable, it may fail complex patients in GIM who often need tailored, interprofessional decisions on their care.Interpersonal communication training to increase interprofessional deliberation may improve efficiency, patient-centredness and outcomes of care in hospitals. Also, electronic communications tools which reduce cognitive burden and facilitate the sharing of clinical observations and orders could help physicians to engage more in non-medical deliberation. Such interventions should take into account real-world power differentials between physicians and other health professions

Creating Sustainable Change in the Interprofessional Academic Family Practice Setting: An Appreciative Inquiry Approach

Background: There is a global shift toward integrated care approaches in primary care. Understanding how to optimize healthcare team effectiveness is of utmost interest in Canada, where primary care reform targets the development of interprofessional teams of providers collaborating to improve patient care. This article presents findings from a longitudinal study of one primary healthcare team in transformation. A theory-based organizational change model is applied to understanding the processes of change in interprofessional healthcare teams.Methods and Findings: We report findings from two years after the implementation of an intervention to advance teamwork in one family health team in Ontario. The intervention was informed by the Appreciative Inquiry (AI) approach. Fifty hours of unstructured clinic observations and interviews were conducted. The findings revealed that a change in team practice, such as patient-centredness, and formal and informal communication opportunities, precede change in team discourse—the way that members speak and think about themselves as an integrated team.Conclusions: The evolution of teamwork in the family practice setting is a gradual, steady process that begins with important changes in the way that things are done (i.e., first-order change), and with continued support and nurturance, can eventually lead to changes in the way that members think and speak about their team (i.e., second-order change)

An intervention to improve interprofessional collaboration and communications : a comparative qualitative study

Interprofessional communication and collaboration are promoted by policymakers as fundamental building blocks for improving patient safety and meeting the demands of increasingly complex care. This paper reports qualitative findings of an interprofessional intervention designed to improve communication and collaboration between different professions in general internal medicine (GIM) hospital wards in Canada. The intervention promoted self-introduction by role and profession to a collaborating colleague in relation to the shared patient, a question or communication regarding the patient, to be followed by an explicit request for feedback from the partner professional. Implementation and uptake of the intervention were evaluated using qualitative methods, including 90 hours of ethnographic observations and interviews collected in both intervention and comparison wards. Documentary data were also collected and analysed. Fieldnotes and interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Our findings suggested that the intervention did not produce the anticipated changes in communication and collaboration between health professionals, and allowed us to identify barriers to the implementation of effective collaboration interventions. Despite initially offering verbal support, senior physicians, nurses, and allied health professionals minimally explained the intervention to their junior colleagues and rarely role-modelled or reiterated support for it. Professional resistances as well as the fast paced, interruptive environment reduced opportunities or incentive to enhance restrictive interprofessional relationships. In a healthcare setting where face-to-face spontaneous interprofessional communication is not hostile but is rare and impersonal, the perceived benefits of improvement are insufficient to implement simple and potentially beneficial communication changes, in the face of habit, and absence of continued senior clinician and management support