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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Protocol

How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis

Authors: W. Dominika Wranik, Jill A. Hayden, Sheri Price, Robin M.N. Parker, Susan M. Haydt, Jeanette M. Edwards, Esther Suter, Alan Katz, Liesl L. Gambold, Adrian R. Levy

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Western publicly funded health care systems increasingly rely on interdisciplinary teams to support primary care delivery and management of chronic conditions. This knowledge synthesis focuses on what is known in the academic and grey literature about optimal structural characteristics of teams. Its goal is to assess which factors contribute to the effective functioning of interdisciplinary primary care teams and improved health system outcomes, with specific focus on (i) team structure contribution to team process, (ii) team process contribution to primary care goals, and (iii) team structure contribution to primary care goals.

Methods and design

The systematic search of academic literature focuses on four chronic conditions and co-morbidities. Within this scope, qualitative and quantitative studies that assess the effects of team characteristics (funding, governance, organization) on care process and patient outcomes will be searched. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PAIS, Web of Science) will be searched systematically. Online web-based searches will be supported by the Grey Matters Tool. Studies will be included, if they report on interdisciplinary primary care in publicly funded Western health systems, and address the relationships between team structure, process, and/or patient outcomes. Studies will be selected in a three-stage screening process (title/abstract/full text) by two independent reviewers in each stage. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. An a priori framework will be applied to data extraction, and a narrative framework approach is used for the synthesis.

Discussion

Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, an electronic decision support tool will be developed for decision makers. It will be searchable along two axes of inquiry: (i) what primary care goals are supported by specific team characteristics and (ii) how should teams be structured to support specific primary care goals? The results of this evidence review will contribute directly to the design of interdisciplinary primary care teams. The optimized design will support the goals of primary care, contributing to the improved health of populations.

Systematic review registration

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lowe F, O'hara S. Multi-disciplinary team working in practice: managing the transition. J Interprof Care. 2000;14(3):269–79.CrossRef
5.
Pearson A, Porritt KA, Doran D, Vincent L, Craig D, Tucker D, Long L, Henstidge V. A comprehensive systematic review of evidence on the structure, process and characteristics and composition of nursing teams that foster a healthy work environment. Int J Evid Based Healthcare. 2006;4:118–59.
6.
Rodriguez HP, Rogers WH, Marshall RE, Safran DG. Multidisciplinary primary care teams: effects on the quality of the clinician-patient interactions and organizational features of care. Med Care. 2007;45(1):19–27.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Schuetz B, Mann E, Everett W. Educating health professionals collaboratively for team-based primary care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010;29(8):1476–80.CrossRef
8.
9.
Maldoon L, Rowan MS, Geneau R, Hogg W, Coulson D. Models of primary care service delivery in Ontario: why such diversity? Healthc Manage Forum. 2006;19(4):18-23.
10.
Ragaz N, Berk A, Ford D, Morgan M. Strategies for family health team leadership: lessons learned by successful teams. Healthc Q. 2010;13(3):39–43.CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
Bowman BT, Kleiner A, Bolton WK. Comanagement of diabetic kidney disease by the primary care provider and nephrologist. Med Clin North Am. 2013;97(1):157–73.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Carter BL, Bosworth HB, Green BB. The hypertension team: the role of the pharmacist, nurse, and teamwork in hypertension therapy. J Clin Hypertens. 2012;14(1):51–65.CrossRef
14.
Faulk JS. Diabetes control and education in transplant care improves outcomes. Nephrol News Issues. 2006;20(10):36. 39-41.PubMed
15.
Fogarty CT, Schultz S. Teachers: team huddles: the role of the primary care educator. Clin Teach. 2010;7(3):157–60.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gupta R, Davis E, Horton C. Interval examination: building primary care teams in an urban academic teaching clinic. J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(11):1517–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
McKinlay E, Pullon S. Interprofessional learning—the solution to collaborative practice in primary care. Nurs N Z. 2007;13(10):16–8.PubMed
18.
19.
20.
Macinko J, Starfield B, Shi L. The contribution of primary care systems to health outcomes within Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, 1970–1998. Health Serv Res. 2003;38(3):831–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
22.
23.
Beckhard R. Organizational issues in the team delivery of comprehensive health care. Milbank Mem Fund Q. 1972;50(3):287–316.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Bower P, Campbell S, Bojke C, Sibbald B. Team structure, team climate and the quality of care in primary care: an observational study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2003;12(4):273–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
Drew P, Jones B, Norton D. Team effectiveness in primary care networks in Alberta. Healthc Q. 2010;13(3):33–8.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Farris KB, Cote I, Feeny D, Johnson JA, Tsuyuki RT, Brilliant S, et al. Enhancing primary care for complex patients. Demonstration project using multidisciplinary teams. Can Fam Physician. 2004;50:998–1003.PubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Ferrante JM, Balasubramanian BA, Hudson SV, Crabtree BF. Principles of the patient-centered medical home and preventive services delivery. Ann Fam Med. 2010;8(2):108–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Hogg W, Lemelin J, Dahrouge S, Liddy C, Armstrong CD, Legault F, et al. Randomized controlled trial of anticipatory and preventive multidisciplinary team care: for complex patients in a community-based primary care setting. Can Fam Physician. 2009;55(12):e76–85.PubMedPubMedCentral
29.
Nutting PA, Miller WL, Crabtree BF, Jaen CR, Stewart EE, Stange KC. Initial lessons from the first national demonstration project on practice transformation to a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2009;7(3):254–60.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Proudfoot JG, Bubner T, Amoroso C, Swan E, Holton C, Winstanley J, et al. Chronic Care Team Profile: a brief tool to measure the structure and function of chronic care teams in general practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2009;15(4):692–8.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Shaw A, de Lusignan S, Rowlands G. Do primary care professionals work as a team: a qualitative study. J Interprof Care. 2005;19(4):396–405.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Solheim K, McElmurry BJ, Kim MJ. Multidisciplinary teamwork in US primary health care. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(3):622–34.CrossRefPubMed
33.
34.
Willens D, Cripps R, Wilson A, Wolff K, Rothman R. Interdisciplinary team care for diabetic patients by primary care physicians, advanced practice nurses, and clinical pharmacists. Clin Diabetes. 2011;29(2):60–8.CrossRef
35.
Bosch M, Dijkstra R, Wensing M, van der Weijden T, Grol R. Organizational culture, team climate and diabetes care in small office-based practices. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8(1):180.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
Haggerty JL, Pineault R, Beaulieu MD, Brunelle Y, Gauthier J, Goulet F, et al. Practice features associated with patient-reported accessibility, continuity, and coordination of primary health care. Ann Fam Med. 2008;6(2):116–23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
37.
38.
39.
Harden A, Garcia J, Oliver S, Rees R, Shepherd J, Brunton G, et al. Applying systematic review methods to studies of people’s views: an example from public health research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58(9):794–800.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Stevenson K, Baker R, Farooqi A, Sorrie R, Khunti K. Features of primary health care teams associated with successful quality improvement of diabetes care: a qualitative study. Fam Pract. 2001;18(1):21–6.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Pluye P, Hong QN. Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers: mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Public Health. 2014;35(1):29.CrossRef
42.
Pope C, Mays N, Popay J. How can we synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence for healthcare policy-makers and managers? Healthcare Manage Forum. 2006;19(1):27–31.CrossRef
43.
44.
Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Lillie E, Perrier L, Horsley T, et al. What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:114. 2288-12-114.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
45.
46.
Petticrew, Mark, Roberts, Helen. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide. Malden, MA; Oxford: Blackwell Pub; 2006.CrossRef
47.
Sandelowski M, Leeman J, Knafl K, Crandell JL. Text-in-context: a method for extracting findings in mixed-methods mixed research synthesis studies. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(6):1428–37.CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Souto RQ, Khanassov V, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I, Pluye P. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):500–1.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Pluye P. Mixed kinds of evidence: synthesis designs and critical appraisal for systematic mixed studies reviews including qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. Evid Based Med. 2015;20(2):79–2014. 110158. Epub 2015 Jan 29.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
51.
52.
Daly J, Willis K, Small R, Green J, Welch N, Kealy M, et al. A hierarchy of evidence for assessing qualitative health research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60(1):43–9.CrossRefPubMed
53.
54.
55.
56.
Long AF, Godfrey M. An evaluation tool to assess the quality of qualitative research studies. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2004;7(2):181–96.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis
Authors
W. Dominika Wranik
Jill A. Hayden
Sheri Price
Robin M.N. Parker
Susan M. Haydt
Jeanette M. Edwards
Esther Suter
Alan Katz
Liesl L. Gambold
Adrian R. Levy
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0339-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Systematic Reviews 1/2016 Go to the issue

Protocol

Disparities in a provision of in-hospital post-arrest interventions for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in the elderly population—protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

Brazilian oral herbal medication for osteoarthritis: a systematic review protocol

Research

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants in clinical practice: a systematic review

Protocol

Efficacy and safety of regenerative cell therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension in animal models: a preclinical systematic review protocol

Protocol

Food groups and risk of chronic disease: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of cohort studies

Methodology

Using qualitative comparative analysis in a systematic review of a complex intervention