Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Primary Care
Published in: BMC Primary Care 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Who is on the primary care team? Professionals’ perceptions of the conceptualization of teams and the underlying factors: a mixed-methods study

Authors: Kirti D. Doekhie, Martina Buljac-Samardzic, Mathilde M. H. Strating, Jaap Paauwe

Published in: BMC Primary Care | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

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?

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
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.
2.
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
3.
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
4.
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.
5.
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
6.
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
7.
Mulvale G, Embrett M, Razavi SD. ‘Gearing up’ to improve interprofessional collaboration in primary care: a systematic review and conceptual framework. BMC Fam Pract. 2016;17(1):83.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire WL. What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(3):263–300.CrossRefPubMed
9.
D'Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M, San Martin Rodriguez L, Beaulieu M. The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. Journal of interprofessional care. 2005;19(S1):116–31.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Saltman DC, O’Dea NA, Farmer J, Veitch C, Rosen G, Kidd MR. Groups or teams in health care: finding the best fit. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(1):55–60.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Gilley A, Kerno SJ. Groups, teams, and communities of practice: a comparison. Adv Dev Hum Resour. 2010;12(1):46–60.CrossRef
12.
Grumbach K, Bodenheimer T. Can health care teams improve primary care practice? JAMA. 2004;291(10):1246–51.CrossRefPubMed
13.
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
14.
West MA, Lyubovnikova J. Illusions of team working in health care. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 2013;27(1):134–42.CrossRefPubMed
15.
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.
16.
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
17.
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
18.
Bushe GR, Chu A. Fluid teams: solutions to the problems of unstable team membership. Organ Dyn. 2011;40(3):181–8.CrossRef
19.
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
20.
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
21.
Mortensen M. Constructing the team: the antecedents and effects of membership model divergence. Organ Sci. 2014;25(3):909–31.CrossRef
22.
Mickan S, Rodger S. The organisational context for teamwork: comparing health care and business literature. Aust Health Rev. 2000;23(1):179–92.CrossRefPubMed
23.
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.
24.
Humphrey SE, Morgeson FP, Mannor MJ. Developing a theory of the strategic core of teams: a role composition model of team performance. J Appl Psychol. 2009;94(1):48.CrossRefPubMed
25.
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
26.
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
27.
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
28.
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
29.
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
30.
Xyrichis A, Lowton K. What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2008;45(1):140–53.CrossRefPubMed
31.
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
32.
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
33.
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
34.
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
35.
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.
36.
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.
37.
38.
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
39.
Hartgerink JM, Cramm JM, Bakker TJEM, Eijsden AM, Mackenbach JP, Nieboer AP. The importance of multidisciplinary teamwork and team climate for relational coordination among teams delivering care to older patients. J Adv Nurs. 2014;70(4):791–9.CrossRefPubMed
40.
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).
41.
42.
43.
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.
44.
45.
Wiegers T, Hopman P, Kringos D, Bakker Dd. NIVEL Overzichtstudies: de eerste lijn. 2011.
46.
Gittell JH. Supervisory span, relational coordination and flight departure performance: a reassessment of postbureaucracy theory. Organ Sci. 2001;12(4):468–83.CrossRef
47.
Blau PM. Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press; 1977.
48.
Kvarnström S. Difficulties in collaboration: a critical incident study of interprofessional healthcare teamwork. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2008;22(2):191–203.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Wageman R, Hackman JR, Lehman E. Team diagnostic survey: development of an instrument. J Appl Behav Sci. 2005;41(4):373–98.CrossRef
50.
Thylefors I, Persson O, Hellström D. Team types, perceived efficiency and team climate in Swedish cross-professional teamwork. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2005;19(2):102–14.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Saavedra R, Earley PC, Van Dyne L. Complex interdependence in task-performing groups. J Appl Psychol. 1993;78(1):61.CrossRef
52.
Weenink J, van Lieshout J, Jung HP, Wensing M. Patient care teams in treatment of diabetes and chronic heart failure in primary care: an observational networks study. Implement Sci. 2011;6(6):66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
McDonald J, Jayasuriya R, Harris MF. The influence of power dynamics and trust on multidisciplinary collaboration: a qualitative case study of type 2 diabetes mellitus. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12(1):63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Rieck AM. Exploring the nature of power distance on general practitioner and community pharmacist relations in a chronic disease management context. Journal of interprofessional care. 2014;28(5):440–6.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Hartgerink JM, Cramm JM, Bakker TJEM, Eijsden RAM, Mackenbach JP, Nieboer AP. The importance of relational coordination for integrated care delivery to older patients in the hospital. J Nurs Manag. 2014;22(2):248–56.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Gittell JH. Transforming relationships for high performance. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 2015.
57.
King N, Ross A. Professional identities and interprofessional relations: evaluation of collaborative community schemes. Soc Work Health Care. 2004;38(2):51–72.CrossRef
58.
Buljac-Samardzic M, Dekker-van Doorn CM, van Wijngaarden JD, van Wijk KP. Interventions to improve team effectiveness: a systematic review. Health Policy. 2010;94(3):183–95.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Doumouras AG, Keshet I, Nathens AB, Ahmed N, Hicks CM. A crisis of faith? A review of simulation in teaching team-based, crisis management skills to surgical trainees. Journal of surgical education. 2012;69(3):274–81.CrossRefPubMed
60.
Murphy M, Curtis K, McCloughen A. What is the impact of multidisciplinary team simulation training on team performance and efficiency of patient care? An integrative review. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2016;19(1):44–53.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Tan SB, Pena G, Altree M, Maddern GJ. Multidisciplinary team simulation for the operating theatre: a review of the literature. ANZ J Surg. 2014;84(7–8):515–22.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Thompson AG. The meaning of patient involvement and participation in health care consultations: a taxonomy. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(6):1297–310.CrossRefPubMed
63.
64.
Dutch Government. Wet medisch-wetenschappelijk onderzoek met mensen. 2016.
Metadata
Title
Who is on the primary care team? Professionals’ perceptions of the conceptualization of teams and the underlying factors: a mixed-methods study
Authors
Kirti D. Doekhie
Martina Buljac-Samardzic
Mathilde M. H. Strating
Jaap Paauwe
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Primary Care / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 2731-4553
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-017-0685-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Primary Care 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

The validity and reliability of the English version of the diabetes distress scale for type 2 diabetes patients in Malaysia

Research article

Training on domestic violence and child safeguarding in general practice: a mixed method evaluation of a pilot intervention

Research article

Correlation between patients’ reasons for encounters/health problems and population density in Japan: a systematic review of observational studies coded by the International Classification of Health Problems in Primary Care (ICHPPC) and the International Classification of Primary care (ICPC)

Research article

Feasibility of an implementation strategy for the integration of health promotion in routine primary care: a quantitative process evaluation

Research article

Musculoskeletal pain and co-morbid insomnia in adults; a population study of the prevalence and impact on restricted social participation

Research article

General practitioners’ perceptions of population based bowel screening and their influence on practice: a qualitative study