Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Interdisciplinary team work is increasingly prevalent, supported by policies and practices that bring care closer to the patient and challenge traditional professional boundaries. To date, there has been a great deal of emphasis on the processes of team work, and in some cases, outcomes.

Method

This study draws on two sources of knowledge to identify the attributes of a good interdisciplinary team; a published systematic review of the literature on interdisciplinary team work, and the perceptions of over 253 staff from 11 community rehabilitation and intermediate care teams in the UK. These data sources were merged using qualitative content analysis to arrive at a framework that identifies characteristics and proposes ten competencies that support effective interdisciplinary team work.

Results

Ten characteristics underpinning effective interdisciplinary team work were identified: positive leadership and management attributes; communication strategies and structures; personal rewards, training and development; appropriate resources and procedures; appropriate skill mix; supportive team climate; individual characteristics that support interdisciplinary team work; clarity of vision; quality and outcomes of care; and respecting and understanding roles.

Conclusions

We propose competency statements that an effective interdisciplinary team functioning at a high level should demonstrate.

Related collections

Most cited references 41

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

James Thomas, Angela Harden (2008)

Background There is a growing recognition of the value of synthesising qualitative research in the evidence base in order to facilitate effective and appropriate health care. In response to this, methods for undertaking these syntheses are currently being developed. Thematic analysis is a method that is often used to analyse data in primary qualitative research. This paper reports on the use of this type of analysis in systematic reviews to bring together and integrate the findings of multiple qualitative studies. Methods We describe thematic synthesis, outline several steps for its conduct and illustrate the process and outcome of this approach using a completed review of health promotion research. Thematic synthesis has three stages: the coding of text 'line-by-line'; the development of 'descriptive themes'; and the generation of 'analytical themes'. While the development of descriptive themes remains 'close' to the primary studies, the analytical themes represent a stage of interpretation whereby the reviewers 'go beyond' the primary studies and generate new interpretive constructs, explanations or hypotheses. The use of computer software can facilitate this method of synthesis; detailed guidance is given on how this can be achieved. Results We used thematic synthesis to combine the studies of children's views and identified key themes to explore in the intervention studies. Most interventions were based in school and often combined learning about health benefits with 'hands-on' experience. The studies of children's views suggested that fruit and vegetables should be treated in different ways, and that messages should not focus on health warnings. Interventions that were in line with these suggestions tended to be more effective. Thematic synthesis enabled us to stay 'close' to the results of the primary studies, synthesising them in a transparent way, and facilitating the explicit production of new concepts and hypotheses. Conclusion We compare thematic synthesis to other methods for the synthesis of qualitative research, discussing issues of context and rigour. Thematic synthesis is presented as a tried and tested method that preserves an explicit and transparent link between conclusions and the text of primary studies; as such it preserves principles that have traditionally been important to systematic reviewing.

0 comments Cited 1364 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review.

Andreas Xyrichis, Karen Lowton (2008)

The increase in prevalence of long-term conditions in Western societies, with the subsequent need for non-acute quality patient healthcare, has brought the issue of collaboration between health professionals to the fore. Within primary care, it has been suggested that multidisciplinary teamworking is essential to develop an integrated approach to promoting and maintaining the health of the population whilst improving service effectiveness. Although it is becoming widely accepted that no single discipline can provide complete care for patients with a long-term condition, in practice, interprofessional working is not always achieved. This review aimed to explore the factors that inhibit or facilitate interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care settings, in order to inform development of multidisciplinary working at the turn of the century. A comprehensive search of the literature was undertaken using a variety of approaches to identify appropriate literature for inclusion in the study. The selected articles used both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Following a thematic analysis of the literature, two main themes emerged that had an impact on interprofessional teamworking: team structure and team processes. Within these two themes, six categories were identified: team premises; team size and composition; organisational support; team meetings; clear goals and objectives; and audit. The complex nature of interprofessional teamworking in primary care meant that despite teamwork being an efficient and productive way of achieving goals and results, several barriers exist that hinder its potential from becoming fully exploited; implications and recommendations for practice are discussed. These findings can inform development of current best practice, although further research needs to be conducted into multidisciplinary teamworking at both the team and organisation level, to ensure that enhancement and maintenance of teamwork leads to an improved quality of healthcare provision.

0 comments Cited 165 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.

Shona Agarwal, Bridget Young, David Jones … (2004)

The limitations of traditional forms of systematic review in making optimal use of all forms of evidence are increasingly evident, especially for policy-makers and practitioners. There is an urgent need for robust ways of incorporating qualitative evidence into systematic reviews. In this paper we provide a brief overview and critique of a selection of strategies for synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence, ranging from techniques that are largely qualitative and interpretive through to techniques that are largely quantitative and integrative. A range of methods is available for synthesising diverse forms of evidence. These include narrative summary, thematic analysis, grounded theory, meta-ethnography, meta-study, realist synthesis, Miles and Huberman's data analysis techniques, content analysis, case survey, qualitative comparative analysis and Bayesian meta-analysis. Methods vary in their strengths and weaknesses, ability to deal with qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence, and type of question for which they are most suitable. We identify a number of procedural, conceptual and theoretical issues that need to be addressed in moving forward with this area, and emphasise the need for existing techniques to be evaluated and modified, rather than inventing new approaches.

0 comments Cited 121 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Hum Resour Health

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Hum Resour Health

Title: Human Resources for Health

Publisher: BioMed Central

ISSN (Electronic): 1478-4491

Publication date Collection: 2013

Publication date (Electronic): 10 May 2013

Volume: 11

Page: 19

Affiliations

[1 ]Southern Cross University, Military Road, East Lismore, 2480, Australia

[2 ]University of Sheffield, Regent Court, 30 Regent Street, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S1 4DA, UK

[3 ]Sheffield Hallam University, Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S10 2BP, UK

[4 ]University of Victoria, 3800 Finnerty Road, Victoria, BC, V8P5C2, Canada

Article

Publisher ID: 1478-4491-11-19

DOI: 10.1186/1478-4491-11-19

PMC ID: 3662612

PubMed ID: 23663329

SO-VID: 137d541d-eaaa-46c3-853d-80ba2442ba48

License:

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

History

Date received : 19 November 2012

Date accepted : 21 April 2013

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 123

See all cited by

- Version 1

Ten principles of good interdisciplinary team work

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Method

Results

Conclusions

Related collections

Tobacco Prevention & Cessation

Most cited references 41

Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews

What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? A literature review.

Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods.

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 44

Cited by 123