Background: The number of people with multiple chronic conditions requiring primary care services increases. Professionals from different disciplines collaborate and coordinate care to deal with the complex health care needs. There is lack of information on current practices regarding interprofessional team (IPT) meetings. Objectives: This study aimed to improve our understanding of the process of interprofessional collaboration in primary care team meetings in the Netherlands by observing the current practice and exploring personal opinions. Methods. Qualitative study involving observations of team meetings and interviews with participants. Eight different IPT meetings (n = 8) in different primary care practices were observed by means of video recordings. Experiences were explored by conducting individual semi-structured interviews (n = 60) with participants (i.e. health care professionals from different disciplines) of the observed team meetings. The data were analysed by means of content analysis. Results: Most participants expressed favourable opinions about their team meetings. However, observations showed that team meetings were more or less hectic, and lacked a clear structure and team coordinator or leader. There appears to be a discrepancy between findings from observations and interviews. From the interviews, four main themes were extracted: (1) Team structure and composition, (2) Patient-centredness, (3) Interaction and (4) Attitude and motivation. Conclusion: IPT meetings could benefit from improvements in structure, patient-centredness and leadership by the chairpersons. Given the discrepancy between observations and interviews, it would appear useful to improve team members’ awareness of aspects that could be improved before training them in dealing with specific challenges.
Het steeds terugkerende dilemma voor schoolleiders is dat van ‘sturen en loslaten’. Vanuit het Rijnlandse denken wil je docenten als vakmensen zoveel mogelijk verantwoordelijkheid geven. Maar waarop stuur je dan? Wanneer geef je ruimte? Voor schoolleiders die nog een managementniveau boven zich hebben, is dat dilemma extra ingewikkeld. De centrale kaders kunnen soms behoorlijk knellend zijn. Waar zit nog je eigen beleidsruimte? En hoe hou je ruimte voor initiatief van de docenten in je team? In dit artikel beoog ik aan de hand van de verbinding tussen Policy Governance®1 en het Rijnlandse denken een paar aanknopingspunten te bieden om met deze paradox om te gaan.
Background: Quality Improvement (QI) is the key for every healthcare organization. QI programs may help healthcare professionals to develop the needed skills for interprofessional collaboration through interprofessional education. Furthermore, the role of diversity in QI teams is not yet fully understood. This evaluation study aimed to obtain in-depth insights into the expectations and experiences of different stakeholders of a hospital-wide interprofessional QI program. Methods: This qualitative study builds upon 20 semi-structured interviews with participants and two focus groups with the coaches and program advisory board members of this QI program. Data were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Three themes emerged from the analysis: “interprofessional education”, “networking” and “motivation: presence with pitfalls”. Working within interprofessional project groups was valuable, because participants with different experiences and skills helped to move the QI project forward. It was simultaneously challenging because IPE was new and revealed problems with hierarchy, communication and planning. Networking was also deemed valuable, but a shared space to keep in contact after finalizing the program was missing. The participants were highly motivated to finish their QI project, but they underestimated the challenges. Conclusions: A hospital-wide QI program must explicitly pay attention to interprofessional collaboration and networking. Leaders of the QI program must cherish the motivation of the participants and make sure that the QI projects are realistic.
