ArticleInternational journal of integrated care
From Model to Everyday Practice: A Qualitative Observational Study of Daily Fact Team Board Meetings.
Article in International journal of integrated care. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) model has rapidly become a way of organising services for people with severe mental illness. FACT describes the integrated approach of interprofessional teams. Method: A qualitative study of interprofessional collaboration in three FACT teams was conducted. Thirty observations of the teams' board meetings were conducted, and field notes were thematically analysed. Results: This study generated three themes in interprofessional collaboration in FACT teams. The first theme reflects the challenges of working in line with the model, the second suggests an unclear understanding of a shared caseload, and the third shows different approaches to working with a shared caseload. Discussion: The themes suggest that there is increased opportunity for the shared caseload in the FACT team board meeting. The findings reflect that there is a lack of either the resources necessary for working with a shared caseload or an understanding of the intention of a shared caseload. Conclusion: The potential of the shared caseload in FACT team board meetings are dependent on sufficient resources and a collective understanding of the FACT model and the shared caseload among professionals. Further research on how a shared caseload is experienced and facilitated in FACT teams can provide insight into their practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.