8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      'Team capital’ in quality improvement teams: findings from an ethnographic study of front-line quality improvement in the NHS

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Teamwork is important in the design and delivery of initiatives in complex healthcare systems but the specifics of quality improvement (QI) teams are not well studied.

          Objective

          To explain the functioning of front-line healthcare teams working on patient-centred QI using Bourdieu’s sociological construct of capital.

          Methods

          One medical ward from each of six NHS Trusts in England participated in the study, purposively selected for a range of performance levels on patient experience metrics. Three ethnographers conducted focused ethnography for 1 year, using interviews and observations to explore the organisation, management and delivery of patient-centred QI projects by the six front-line teams. Data were analysed using Bourdieu’s typology of the four forms of capital: economic, social, symbolic and cultural.

          Results

          While all teams implemented some QI activities to improve patient experience, progress was greater where teams included staff from a broad range of disciplines and levels of seniority. Teams containing both clinical and non-clinical staff, including staff on lower grades such as healthcare assistants and clerks, engaged more confidently with patient experience data than unidisciplinary teams, and implemented a more ambitious set of projects. We explain these findings in terms of ‘team capital’.

          Conclusion

          Teams that chose to restrict membership to particular disciplines appeared to limit their capital, whereas more varied teams were able to draw on multiple resources, skills, networks and alliances to overcome challenges. Staff of varying levels of seniority also shared and valued a broader range of insights into patient experience, including informal knowledge from daily practice. The construct of ‘team capital’ has the potential to enrich understanding of the mechanism of teamwork in QI work.

          Related collections

          Most cited references15

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Interprofessional teamwork: professional cultures as barriers.

          Pippa Hall (2005)
          Each health care profession has a different culture which includes values, beliefs, attitudes, customs and behaviours. Professional cultures evolved as the different professions developed, reflecting historic factors, as well as social class and gender issues. Educational experiences and the socialization process that occur during the training of each health professional reinforce the common values, problem-solving approaches and language/jargon of each profession. Increasing specialization has lead to even further immersion of the learners into the knowledge and culture of their own professional group. These professional cultures contribute to the challenges of effective interprofessional teamwork. Insight into the educational, systemic and personal factors which contribute to the culture of the professions can help guide the development of innovative educational methodologies to improve interprofessional collaborative practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found
            Is Open Access

            Focused Ethnography

            In this paper I focus on a distinctive kind of sociological ethnography which is particularly, though not exclusively, adopted in applied research. It has been proposed that this branch of ethno­graphy be referred to as focused ethnography. Focused ethnography shall be delineated within the context of other common conceptions of what may be called conventional ethnography. However, rather than being opposed to it, focused ethno­graphy is rather complementary to conventional ethnography, particularly in fields that are charac­teristic of socially and functionally differentiated contemporary society. The paper outlines the back­ground as well as the major methodological features of focused ethnography, such as short-term field visits, data intensity and time intensity, so as to provide a background for future studies in this area. URN: urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs0503440 Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, Vol 6, No 3 (2005): The State of the Art of Qualitative Research in Europe
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Simple rules for evidence translation in complex systems: A qualitative study

              Background Ensuring patients benefit from the latest medical and technical advances remains a major challenge, with rational-linear and reductionist approaches to translating evidence into practice proving inefficient and ineffective. Complexity thinking, which emphasises interconnectedness and unpredictability, offers insights to inform evidence translation theories and strategies. Drawing on detailed insights into complex micro-systems, this research aimed to advance empirical and theoretical understanding of the reality of making and sustaining improvements in complex healthcare systems. Methods Using analytical auto-ethnography, including documentary analysis and literature review, we assimilated learning from 5 years of observation of 22 evidence translation projects (UK). We used a grounded theory approach to develop substantive theory and a conceptual framework. Results were interpreted using complexity theory and ‘simple rules’ were identified reflecting the practical strategies that enhanced project progress. Results The framework for Successful Healthcare Improvement From Translating Evidence in complex systems (SHIFT-Evidence) positions the challenge of evidence translation within the dynamic context of the health system. SHIFT-Evidence is summarised by three strategic principles, namely (1) ‘act scientifically and pragmatically’ – knowledge of existing evidence needs to be combined with knowledge of the unique initial conditions of a system, and interventions need to adapt as the complex system responds and learning emerges about unpredictable effects; (2) ‘embrace complexity’ – evidence-based interventions only work if related practices and processes of care within the complex system are functional, and evidence-translation efforts need to identify and address any problems with usual care, recognising that this typically includes a range of interdependent parts of the system; and (3) ‘engage and empower’ – evidence translation and system navigation requires commitment and insights from staff and patients with experience of the local system, and changes need to align with their motivations and concerns. Twelve associated ‘simple rules’ are presented to provide actionable guidance to support evidence translation and improvement in complex systems. Conclusion By recognising how agency, interconnectedness and unpredictability influences evidence translation in complex systems, SHIFT-Evidence provides a tool to guide practice and research. The ‘simple rules’ have potential to provide a common platform for academics, practitioners, patients and policymakers to collaborate when intervening to achieve improvements in healthcare. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-018-1076-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open Qual
                BMJ Open Qual
                bmjqir
                bmjoq
                BMJ Open Quality
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2399-6641
                2020
                26 May 2020
                : 9
                : 2
                : e000948
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentCentre for Biomedicine, Self and Society , University of Edinburgh , Edinburgh, UK
                [2 ]departmentNational Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience , King's College London , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [4 ]departmentHealth Services Research Unit , University of Aberdeen , Aberdeen, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Catherine Montgomery; catherine.montgomery@ 123456ed.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5829-6137
                Article
                bmjoq-2020-000948
                10.1136/bmjoq-2020-000948
                7259840
                32461250
                eed4ab6a-cbe7-4bf3-866b-7416267ae012
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:  https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 18 February 2020
                : 22 April 2020
                : 04 May 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: 209519/Z/17/Z
                Funded by: Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Centre;
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002001, Health Services and Delivery Research Programme;
                Award ID: 14/156/06
                Categories
                Original Research
                1506
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                quality improvement,patient-centred care,teamwork,qualitative research

                Comments

                Comment on this article