Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28830410›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2017

Collaboration in teams with nurse practitioners and general practitioners during out-of-hours and implications for patient care; a qualitative study.

Mieke van der Biezen, Michel Wensing, Lusine Poghosyan, Regi van der Burgt, Miranda Laurant

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Mieke van der BiezenRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. mieke.vanderbiezen@radboudumc.nl.
Michel WensingRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Lusine PoghosyanColumbia University School of Nursing, 168th St., Suite 219, New York, NY, 10032, USA.
Regi van der BurgtFoundation for Development of Quality Care in General Practice, Tilburgseweg-West 100, 5652 NP, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Miranda LaurantRadboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Scientific Center for Quality of Healthcare, IQ Healthcare, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLColumbia University · USRadboud University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasingly, nurse practitioners (NPs) are deployed in teams along with general practitioners (GPs) to help meet the demand for out-of-hours care. The purpose of this study was to explore factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs in teams working out-of-hours.

methodsA descriptive qualitative study was done using a total of 27 semi-structured interviews and two focus group discussions. Data was collected between June, 2014 and October, 2015 at an out-of-hours primary care organisation in the Netherlands. Overall, 38 health professionals (GPs, NPs, and support staff) participated in the study. The interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers conducted an inductive content analysis, involving the identification of relevant items in a first phase and clustering into themes in a second phase.

resultsThe following four themes emerged from the data: clarity of NP role and regulation, shared caseload and use of skills, communication concerning professional roles, trust and support in NP practice. Main factors influencing collaboration between GPs and NPs included a lack of knowledge regarding the NPs' scope of practice and regulations governing NP role; differences in teams in sharing caseload and using each other's skills effectively; varying support of GPs for the NP role; and limited communication between GPs and NPs regarding professional roles during the shift. Lack of collaboration was perceived to result in an increased risk of delay for patients who needed treatment from a GP, especially in teams with more NPs. Collaboration was not perceived to improve over time as teams varied across shifts.

conclusionIn out-of-hours primary care teams constantly change and team members are often unfamiliar with each other or other's competences. In this environment, knowledge and communication about team members' roles is continuously at stake. Especially in teams with more NPs, team members need to use each other's skills to deliver care to all patients on time.

Indexed as

General PractitionersInterprofessional RelationsNurse PractitionersAdultAfter-Hours CareAttitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationFemaleFocus GroupsHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPatient Care TeamPrimary Health CareCollaborationInter-professional relationsNurse practitionerNursingOut-of-hours carePrimary careSkill mix

Identifiers

PMID28830410
PMCPMC5568365
OpenAlexW2747379845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.