Andreas Xyrichis

Teamwork: a concept analysis

AIM This paper is a report of an analysis of the concept of teamwork. BACKGROUND Teamwork is seen as an important facilitator in delivering quality healthcare services internationally. However, research studies of teamwork in health care are criticized for lacking a basic conceptual understanding of what this concept represents. A universal definition for healthcare settings and professionals is missing from published literature. METHOD Walker and Avants approach was used to guide this concept analysis. Literature searches used bibliographic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Proquest CSA), internet search engines (GoogleScholar), and hand searches. Literature published between 1976 and 2006 was reviewed but only material in English was included. FINDINGS Based on the analysis undertaken, teamwork is proposed as a dynamic process involving two or more healthcare professionals with complementary backgrounds and skills, sharing common health goals and exercising concerted physical and mental effort in assessing, planning, or evaluating patient care. This is accomplished through interdependent collaboration, open communication and shared decision-making, and generates value-added patient, organizational and staff outcomes. CONCLUSION Praising the value of teamwork without a common understanding of what this concept represents endangers both research into this way of working and its effective utilization in practice. The proposed definition helps reconcile discrepancies between how this concept is understood by nurses and doctors, as well as allied health professionals. A common understanding can facilitate communication in educational, research and clinical settings and is imperative for improving clarity and validity of future research.

Teamwork, collaboration, coordination, and networking: Why we need to distinguish between different types of interprofessional practice.

Dow and colleagues’ (2017) recent editorial entitled Teamwork on the rocks: Rethinking interprofessional practice as networking offers an important contribution to the literature. Their editorial s...

Intensive care discharge summaries for general practice staff: a focus group study.

Background Understanding how patients and relatives can be supported after hospital discharge is a UK research priority. Intensive Care Unit (ICU) discharge summaries are a simple way of providing GPs with the information they require to coordinate ongoing care, but little evidence is available to guide best practice. Aim This study aimed at better understanding the information needs of GP staff (GPs and practice nurses) supporting former patients of ICUs and their families following discharge from hospital, and identifying the barriers/facilitators associated with ICU–primary care information transfer. Design and setting This was a qualitative exploratory study of practices and participants throughout the UK. Method Audiotaped focus group discussions, complemented by small-group/individual interviews, were conducted with 15 former patients of ICUs, four relatives, and 20 GP staff between June and September 2015. Demographic data were captured by questionnaire and qualitative data were thematically analysed. Results Findings suggest variability in discharge information experiences and blurred lines of responsibility between hospital and GP staff, and patients/relatives. Continuity of care was affected by delayed or poor communication from the hospital; GPs’ limited contact with patients from critical care; and a lack of knowledge of the effects of critical illness or resources available to ameliorate these difficulties. Time pressures and information technology were, respectively, the most commonly mentioned barrier and facilitator. Conclusion Effective rehabilitation after a critical illness requires a coordinated and comprehensive approach, incorporating the provision of well-completed, timely, and relevant ICU–primary care discharge information. Health professionals need an improved understanding of critical illness, and patients and families must be included in all aspects of the information-sharing process.

Examining the nature of interprofessional practice: An initial framework validation and creation of the InterProfessional Activity Classification Tool (InterPACT)

ABSTRACT The practice of, and research on interprofessional working in healthcare, commonly referred to as teamwork, has been growing rapidly. This has attracted international policy support flowing from the growing belief that patient safety and quality of care can only be achieved through the collective effort of the multiple professionals caring for a given patient. Despite the increasing policy support, the evidence for effectiveness lags behind: while there are supporting analytic epidemiological studies, few reliable intervention studies have been published and so we have yet to confirm a causal link. We argue that this lag in evidence development may be because interprofessional terms (e.g. teamwork, collaboration) remain conceptually unclear, with no common terminology or definitions, making it difficult to distinguish interventions from each other. In this paper, we examine published studies from the last decade in order to elicit current usage of terms related to interprofessional working; and, in so doing, undertake an initial empirical validation of an existing conceptual framework by mapping its four categories (teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking) against the descriptions of interprofessional interventions in the included studies. We searched Medline and Embase for papers describing interprofessional interventions using a standard approach. We independently screened papers and classified these under set categories following a thematic approach. Disagreements were resolved through consensus. Twenty papers met our inclusion criteria. Identified interprofessional work interventions fall into a range, from looser to tighter links between members. Definitions are inconsistently and inadequately applied. We found the framework to be a helpful and practical tool for classifying such interventions more consistently. Our analysis enabled us to scrutinise the original dimensions of the framework, confirm their usefulness and consistency, and reveal new sub-categories. We propose a slightly revised typology and a classification tool (InterPACT) for future validation, with four mutually exclusive categories: teamwork, collaboration, coordination and networking. Consistent use, further examination and refinement of the new typology and tool may lead to greater clarity in definition and design of interventions. This should support the development of a reliable and coherent evidence base on interventions to promote interprofessional working in health and social care.

Does nurse-led initiation of Ottawa ankle rules reduce ED length of stay?

INTRODUCTION Ankle injuries can account for up to 3.8% of UK Emergency Department (ED) presentations per annum and this figure is comparative to the 4.4% in North America. Growing ED attendance impacts on crowding, waiting times, patient satisfaction and service provision. One way to streamline service would be widespread use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules (OAR), which reduces the need to wait for radiography. AIM To examine the best available evidence on the impact of OAR on ED length of stay (LoS) following standard systematic review methodology. METHODS A systematic search was undertaken in the CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and BNI databases. Studies that examined OAR use in the ED adult population were considered. Four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the narrative synthesis. RESULTS All four studies point towards a reduction in LoS following OAR introduction. The quality of the body of evidence is considered to be low due to moderate risk of bias and indirectness between the studies. DISCUSSION A strong body of evidence supports OAR use in reducing radiography but further research is needed to explore impact on LoS. This would inform clinical practice and potentially combat current pressures faced within EDs worldwide.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Compared with Non-specialized Therapy for Alleviating the Effect of Auditory Hallucinations in People with Reoccurring Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is recommended as a psychological intervention for those diagnosed with schizophrenia. The prevalence of auditory hallucinations is high among this group, many of whom are cared for by community mental health teams that may not have easy access to qualified CBT practitioners. This systematic review examined the evidence for the superiority of CBT compared to non-specialized therapy in alleviating auditory hallucinations in community patients with schizophrenia. Two RCTs met the inclusion criteria totaling 105 participants. The Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS)—Positive Scale was the outcome measure examined. A meta-analysis revealed a pooled mean difference of −0.86 [95 % CI −2.38, 0.65] in favor of CBT, although this did not reach statistical significance. This systematic review concluded there is no clinically significant difference in the reduction of positive symptoms of schizophrenia when treated by CBT compared to a non-specialized therapy for adults experiencing auditory hallucinations.

Does topical Amethocaine cream increase first-time successful cannulation in children compared with a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Background Cannulation of children is often required for administration of intravenous fluids and medications, but can cause pain and anxiety. Amethocaine and a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) cream are two of the most commonly used local anaesthetic creams. Objective To examine the evidence for the superiority of Amethocaine cream compared with EMLA cream in facilitating successful first-time cannulation in children. Method A systematic search was undertaken in MEDLINE and EMBASE in June 2014. Studies examining cannulation, undertaken with children and providing data about first-time cannulation success rates were considered for inclusion. Three randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Data extraction was undertaken independently by the two authors using predefined data fields. Results Pooled analysis was based on a random effects model. Low statistical heterogeneity was observed. Amethocaine cream increased the likelihood of successful first-time cannulation (RR 1.046, CI 0.975 to 1.122), although this did not reach statistical significance (p=0.211). Conclusions Amethocaine cream does not appear to significantly facilitate successful first-time cannulation. Lack of precision and design weaknesses of the included studies hinder the formation of a strong recommendation for either cream. Implications Based on the evidence reviewed here and considering analgesic properties and cost-savings associated with both creams, a weak recommendation can be issued in favour of Amethocaine cream for cannulation in children based on high-quality evidence but where the treatment choice will depend on other factors including cost and provider preference.

The long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life of patients following blunt thoracic injury: a narrative literature review

BackgroundMajor Trauma remains a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Blunt Thoracic Injury (BTI) accounts for > 15% of United Kingdom (UK) trauma admissions and is consistently associated with respiratory related complications that include pneumonia and respiratory failure. Despite this, it is unclear in current clinical practice how BTI impacts on the recovering trauma patients after discharge from hospital. This study aimed to investigate the state of knowledge on the impact of BTI on the long-term outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQoL).MethodsData were sourced from Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL and Science Direct using a pre-defined systematic search strategy. A subsequent hand search of key references was used to identify potentially missed studies. Abstracts were screened for eligibility and inclusion. Fifteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were critically appraised. Data were extracted, analysed and synthesised in categories and sub-categories following a narrative approach.ResultsThree major themes were identified from the 15 studies included in this review: (i) physical impact of BTI, (ii) psychological impact of BTI and (iii) socio-economic impact of BTI. The bulk of the available data focused on the physical impact where further sub-themes included: (i) physical functioning, (ii) ongoing unresolved pain, (iii) reduced respiratory function, (iv) thoracic structural integrity. Although there was a substantial difference in the length and method of follow up, there remains a general trend towards physical symptoms improving over time, particularly over the first six months after injury. Despite this, where sequelae continued at six months it remained likely that these would also be present at two years after injury.ConclusionThe literature review demonstrated that BTI is associated with substantial sequelae that impacts on all aspects of daily functioning. Despite this there remains a paucity of data relating to long term outcomes in the BTI population, especially relating to psychological and socio-economic impact. There is also little consensus on the measures, tools and time-frames used to measure outcomes and HRQoL in this population. The full impact of BTI on this population needs further exploration.

Beyond restraint: Raising awareness of restrictive practices in acute care settings

Citing this paper Please note that where the full-text provided on Kings Research Portal is the Author Accepted Manuscript or Post-Print version this may differ from the final Published version. If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publishers definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publishers website for any subsequent corrections.

Can Schwartz Center Rounds support healthcare staff with emotional challenges at work, and how do they compare with other interventions aimed at providing similar support? A systematic review and scoping reviews

Objectives (i) To synthesise the evidence-base for Schwartz Center Rounds (Rounds) to assess any impact on healthcare staff and identify key features; (ii) to scope evidence for interventions with similar aims, and compare effectiveness and key features to Rounds. Design Systematic review of Rounds literature; scoping reviews of comparator interventions (action learning sets; after action reviews; Balint groups; caregiver support programme; clinical supervision; critical incident stress debriefing; mindfulness-based stress reduction; peer-supported storytelling; psychosocial intervention training; reflective practice groups; resilience training). Data sources PsychINFO, CINAHL, MEDLINE and EMBASE, internet search engines; consultation with experts. Eligibility criteria Empirical evaluations (qualitative or quantitative); any healthcare staff in any healthcare setting; published in English. Results The overall evidence base for Rounds is limited. We developed a composite definition to aid comparison with other interventions from 41 documents containing a definition of Rounds. Twelve (10 studies) were empirical evaluations. All were of low/moderate quality (weak study designs including lack of control groups). Findings showed the value of Rounds to attenders, with a self-reported positive impact on individuals, their relationships with colleagues and patients and wider cultural changes. The evidence for the comparative interventions was scant and also low/moderate quality. Some features of Rounds were shared by other interventions, but Rounds offer unique features including being open to all staff and having no expectation for verbal contribution by attenders. Conclusions Evidence of effectiveness for all interventions considered here remains limited. Methods that enable identification of core features related to effectiveness are needed to optimise benefit for individual staff members and organisations as a whole. A systems approach conceptualising workplace well-being arising from both individual and environmental/structural factors, and comprising interventions both for assessing and improving the well-being of healthcare staff, is required. Schwartz Rounds could be considered as one strategy to enhance staff well-being.