The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0685-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Due to the growing prevalence of elderly patients with multi-morbidity living at home, there is an increasing need for primary care professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds to collaborate as primary care teams. However, it is unclear how primary care professionals conceptualize teams and what underlying factors influence their perception of being part of a team. Our research question is: What are primary care professionals’ perceptions of teams and team membership among primary care disciplines and what factors influence their perceptions?
We conducted a mixed-methods study in the Dutch primary care setting. First, a survey study of 152 professionals representing 12 primary care disciplines was conducted, focusing on their perceptions of which disciplines are part of the team and the degree of relational coordination between professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds. Subsequently, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 32 professionals representing 5 primary care disciplines to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying factors influencing their perceptions and the (mis)alignment between these perceptions.
Misalignments were found between perceptions regarding which disciplines are members of the team and the relational coordination between disciplines. For example, general practitioners were viewed as part of the team by helping assistants, (district) nurses, occupational therapists and geriatric specialized practice nurses, whereas the general practitioners themselves only considered geriatric specialized practice nurses to be part of their team. Professionals perceive multidisciplinary primary care teams as having multiple inner and outer layers. Three factors influence their perception of being part of a team and acting accordingly: a) knowing the people you work with, b) the necessity for knowledge exchange and c) sharing a holistic view of caregiving.
Research and practice should take into account the misalignment between primary care professionals’ perceptions of primary care teams, as our study notes variations in the conceptualization of primary care teams. To enhance teamwork between professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds, professionals acknowledge the importance of three underlying conditions: team familiarity, regular and structured knowledge exchange between all professionals involved in the care process and realizing and believing in the added value for patients of working as a team.
Additional file 1: Questionnaire survey data. The questionnaire used for quantitative data collection on collaboration and relational coordination between primary care professionals. (DOCX 59 kb)
Additional file 2: Interview guide. The interview guide used for qualitative data collection on collaboration and teams. (DOCX 16 kb)
Additional file 3: Team size, diversity and part of the team. The table indicates the average team size and diversity and which primary care disciplines are considered as part of the team by professionals from other disciplinary backgrounds. (DOCX 14 kb)
Additional file 4: Mutual degrees of relational coordination, subdivided into communication and relationship dimensions. The table indicates the degrees of relational coordination between primary care professionals from different disciplinary backgrounds as perceived by the professionals themselves. (DOCX 14 kb)
Additional file 5: Descriptives and correlations between perceived as part of the team and the degree of relational coordination. The table indicates the correlation between the perceptions of all participants on the team membership of professionals from a specific disciplinary background in the team and the perceived degrees of relational coordination with these professionals. (DOCX 13 kb)
van Dongen, Jerôme Jean Jacques, van Bokhoven MA, Daniëls R, van der Weijden T, Emonts, Wencke Wilhelmina Gerarda Petronella, Beurskens A. Developing interprofessional care plans in chronic care: a scoping review. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):137.
Scherer M, Hansen H, Gensichen J, Mergenthal K, Riedel-Heller S, Weyerer S, et al. Association between multimorbidity patterns and chronic pain in elderly primary care patients: a cross-sectional observational study. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):1. CrossRef
Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Research Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9. CrossRef
Bähler C, Huber CA, Brüngger B, Reich O. Multimorbidity, health care utilization and costs in an elderly community-dwelling population: a claims data based observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15(23):1–12.
Loeb DF, Bayliss EA, Candrian C, Binswanger IA. Primary care providers’ experiences caring for complex patients in primary care: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):1. CrossRef
Trivedi D, Goodman C, Gage H, Baron N, Scheibl F, Iliffe S, et al. The effectiveness of inter-professional working for older people living in the community: a systematic review. Health & Social Care in the Community. 2013;21(2):113–28. CrossRef
Gilley A, Kerno SJ. Groups, teams, and communities of practice: a comparison. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2010;12(1):46–60. CrossRef
Tannenbaum SI, Mathieu JE, Salas E, Cohen D. Teams are changing: are research and practice evolving fast enough? Ind Organ Psychol. 2012;5(1):2–24. CrossRef
Lyubovnikova J, West MA, Dawson JF, Carter MR. 24-karat or fool’s gold? Consequences of real team and co-acting group membership in healthcare organizations. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2014;24(5):1–22.
West MA, Lyubovnikova J. Real teams or pseudo teams? The changing landscape needs a better map. Ind Organ Psychol. 2012;5(1):25–8. CrossRef
Wageman R, Gardner H, Mortensen M. The changing ecology of teams: new directions for teams research. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(3):301–15. CrossRef
Bushe GR, Chu A. Fluid teams: solutions to the problems of unstable team membership. Organ Dyn. 2011;40(3):181–8. CrossRef
Summers JK, Humphrey SE, Ferris GR. Team member change, flux in coordination, and performance: effects of strategic core roles, information transfer, and cognitive ability. Acad Manag J. 2012;55(2):314–38. CrossRef
Huckman RS, Staats BR. Fluid tasks and fluid teams: the impact of diversity in experience and team familiarity on team performance. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management. 2011;13(3):310–28. CrossRef
Mortensen M. Constructing the team: the antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organ Sci. 2014;25(3):909–31. CrossRef
O'leary MB, Mortensen M, Woolley AW. Multiple team membership: a theoretical model of its effects on productivity and learning for individuals and teams. Acad Manag Rev. 2011;36(3):461–78.
Choi H, Thompson L. Old wine in a new bottle: impact of membership change on group creativity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 2005;98(2):121–32. CrossRef
Hirst G. Effects of membership change on open discussion and team performance: the moderating role of team tenure. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2009;18(2):231–49. CrossRef
Jaruseviciene L, Liseckiene I, Valius L, Kontrimiene A, Jarusevicius G, Lapão LV. Teamwork in primary care: perspectives of general practitioners and community nurses in Lithuania. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14(1):1. CrossRef
Allen NJ, Hecht TD. The ‘romance of teams’: toward an understanding of its psychological underpinnings and implications. J Occup Organ Psychol. 2004;77(4):439–61. CrossRef
Sargeant J, Loney E, Murphy G. Effective interprofessional teams:“contact is not enough” to build a team. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2008;28(4):228–34. CrossRef
Sheard A, Kakabadse A. From loose groups to effective teams: the nine key factors of the team landscape. Journal of Management Development. 2002;21(2):133–51. CrossRef
Gucciardi E, Espin S, Morganti A, Dorado L. Exploring interprofessional collaboration during the integration of diabetes teams into primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):1. CrossRef
Hoffer GJ. Coordinating mechanisms in care provider groups: relational coordination as a mediator and input uncertainty as a moderator of performance effects. Manag Sci. 2002;48(11):1408–26. CrossRef
Gittell JH, Weinberg D, Pfefferle S, Bishop C. Impact of relational coordination on job satisfaction and quality outcomes: a study of nursing homes. Hum Resour Manag J. 2008;18(2):154–70. CrossRef
Gittell JH. Relational coordination: coordinating work through relationships of shared goals, shared knowledge and mutual respect. In: Kyriakidou O, Özbilgin M, editors. Relational perspectives in organizational studies. A research companion Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishers; 2006. p. 74-94.
Gittell JH. New directions for relational coordination theory. In: Cameron K, Spreitzer G, editors. The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press; 2011. p. 400–11.
Cramm JM, Nieboer AP. Relational coordination promotes quality of chronic care delivery in Dutch disease-management programs. Health Care Manag Rev. 2012;37(4):301–9. CrossRef
Kringos DS, Boerma WGW, Hutchinson A, Saltman RB, (Eds.). Building primary care in a changing Europe. European observatory on health systems and policies, Observatory studies series, vol. 38 (2015).
Triantafillou J, Naiditch M, Repkova K, Stiehr K, Carretero S, Emilsson T, et al. Informal care in the long-term care system European overview paper. 2010.
Wiegers T, Hopman P, Kringos D, Bakker Dd. NIVEL Overzichtstudies: de eerste lijn. 2011.
Gittell JH. Supervisory span, relational coordination and flight departure performance: a reassessment of postbureaucracy theory. Organ Sci. 2001;12(4):468–83. CrossRef
Blau PM. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press; 1977.
Wageman R, Hackman JR, Lehman E. Team diagnostic survey: development of an instrument. J Appl Behav Sci. 2005;41(4):373–98. CrossRef
Saavedra R, Earley PC, Van Dyne L. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):61. CrossRef
Gittell JH. Transforming relationships for high performance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 2015.
King N, Ross A. Professional identities and interprofessional relations: evaluation of collaborative community schemes. Soc Work Health Care. 2004;38(2):51–72. CrossRef
Weinberg DB, Lusenhop RW, Gittell JH, Kautz CM. Coordination between formal providers and informal caregivers. Health Care Manag Rev. 2007;32(2):140–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.HMR.0000267790.24933.4c. CrossRef
Dutch Government. Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen. 2016.
- Who is on the primary care team? Professionals’ perceptions of the conceptualization of teams and the underlying factors: a mixed-methods study
Kirti D. Doekhie
Mathilde M. H. Strating
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Allgemeinmedizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet
Mail Icon II