Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34419021›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Evaluation of interprofessional teamwork modules implementation in an emergency department - A mixed-methods case study of implementation fidelity.

Jenny Liu, Sari Ponzer, Nasim Farrokhnia, Italo Masiello

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. 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

4 authors.

Jenny LiuDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. jenny.liu@ki.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7434-3725
Sari PonzerDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Nasim FarrokhniaDepartment of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Italo MasielloDepartment of Computer Science and Media Technology, Linnaeus University, Växjö, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe need for interprofessional collaboration has been emphasized by health organizations. This study was part of a mixed-methods evaluation of interprofessional teamwork modules implementation in an emergency department (ED), where a major intervention was didactic training of team roles and behaviours in combination with practice scenarios. The aim of the study was to evaluate the implementation of interprofessional teamwork modules from a staff perspective and focus on how implementation fidelity may be sustained.

methodsIn this mixed-methods case study we triangulated staff data from structured observations, semi-structured interviews, and a questionnaire repeated at intervals over 5 years. A protocol of key team behaviours was used for the observations conducted in June 2016 and June 2018, 1½ and 3½ years after the initial implementation. A purposeful sample of central informants, including nursing and medical professionals and section managers, was interviewed from May to June 2018. The interview guide consisted of open-ended questions about the experiences of interprofessional teamwork modules and the implementation process. The questionnaire consisted of five statements about the perceived workload, interprofessional collaboration and patient satisfaction, where each was rated on a Likert scale.

resultsGood fidelity to four out of five key team behaviours was observed during the first year. However, fidelity was sustained only for one key team behaviour after 3 years. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of 18 individual interviews. The theme Enjoying working together, but feeling less efficient emerged of the interprofessional teamwork modules, despite shorter ED stays for the patients. Negative experiences of the staff included passive team leaders and slow care teams. The theme Stimulating to create, but challenging to sustain emerged of the implementation process, where barriers were not adressed and implementation fidelity not sustained. The staff questionnaire showed that the perceived work conditions was improved in periods of high fidelity, but deteriorated to pre-implementation levels as fidelity to the key team behaviours decayed in 2018.

conclusionsExtensive planning and successful initial implementation were not enough to sustain the key behaviour changes in the study. The use of implementation frameworks can be helpful in future projects.

Indexed as

Interprofessional RelationsPatient Care TeamEmergency Service, HospitalHumansEmergency departmentFidelityImplementationInterprofessionalObservationsQualitative content analysisStaff surveyTeamwork

Identifiers

PMID34419021
PMCPMC8380355

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.