Sarah Sims

Evidence of a shared purpose, critical reflection, innovation and leadership in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis

Abstract Realist synthesis is a theory-driven approach for evaluating complex interventions using empirical evidence, which seeks an explanatory analysis of who a complex intervention works for, how, why, and in what circumstances. Interprofessional teamworking in healthcare is one such complex intervention, as teams are influenced by social and organizational factors, which makes them highly variable and context dependent. This article concludes a series of four articles that report on a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamworking. The synthesis identified 13 mechanisms that are reported in the literature to be the underlying processes through which interprofessional teamworking produces its effects. This article explores four of these mechanisms: a shared purpose; critical reflection; innovation; and leadership. These mechanisms together explain how a team sets and maintains its focus and direction. This article highlights that whilst many assumptions are made within the healthcare literature about how these mechanisms operate within teams, these assumptions are not always founded upon strong empirical evidence.

Evidence of collaboration, pooling of resources, learning and role blurring in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis

Abstract Interprofessional teamwork has become an integral feature of healthcare delivery in a wide range of conditions and services in many countries. Many assumptions are made in healthcare literature and policy about how interprofessional teams function and about the outcomes of interprofessional teamwork. Realist synthesis is an approach to reviewing research evidence on complex interventions which seeks to explore these assumptions. It does this by unpacking the mechanisms of an intervention, exploring the contexts which trigger or deactivate them and connecting these contexts and mechanisms to their subsequent outcomes. This is the second in a series of four papers reporting a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamworking. The paper discusses four of the 13 mechanisms identified in the synthesis: collaboration and coordination; pooling of resources; individual learning; and role blurring. These mechanisms together capture the day-to-day functioning of teams and the dependence of that on members’ understanding each others’ skills and knowledge and learning from them. This synthesis found empirical evidence to support all four mechanisms, which tentatively suggests that collaboration, pooling, learning, and role blurring are all underlying processes of interprofessional teamwork. However, the supporting evidence for individual learning was relatively weak, therefore there may be assumptions made about learning within healthcare literature and policy that are not founded upon strong empirical evidence. There is a need for more robust research on individual learning to further understand its relationship with interprofessional teamworking in healthcare.

Using realist synthesis to understand the mechanisms of interprofessional teamwork in health and social care

Abstract Realist synthesis offers a novel and innovative way to interrogate the large literature on interprofessional teamwork in health and social care teams. This article introduces realist synthesis and its approach to identifying and testing the underpinning processes (or “mechanisms”) that make an intervention work, the contexts that trigger those mechanisms and their subsequent outcomes. A realist synthesis of the evidence on interprofessional teamwork is described. Thirteen mechanisms were identified in the synthesis and findings for one mechanism, called “Support and value” are presented in this paper. The evidence for the other twelve mechanisms (“collaboration and coordination”, “pooling of resources”, “individual learning”, “role blurring”, “efficient, open and equitable communication”, “tactical communication”, “shared responsibility and influence”, “team behavioural norms”, “shared responsibility and influence”, “critically reviewing performance and decisions”, “generating and implementing new ideas” and “leadership”) are reported in a further three papers in this series. The “support and value” mechanism referred to the ways in which team members supported one another, respected other’s skills and abilities and valued each other’s contributions. “Support and value” was present in some, but far from all, teams and a number of contexts that explained this variation were identified. The article concludes with a discussion of the challenges and benefits of undertaking this realist synthesis.

Evidence of communication, influence and behavioural norms in interprofessional teams: a realist synthesis

Abstract This article is the third in a series reporting the process and findings of a realist synthesis of interprofessional teamwork in health and social care. The synthesis articulated and tested four “mechanisms” (processes) of teamwork related to communication and found variable evidence to support them. Evidence was strongest for “efficient, open and equitable communication” and “tactical communication”, but lacking for the shared responsibility element of the “shared responsibility and influence” mechanism. Little evidence was found to support or oppose the mechanism, “team behavioural norms”, so its status as a mechanism of interprofessional teamwork is unclear. A striking finding for all the mechanisms was the dearth of information on how they affected patient clinical outcomes and experiences.

Impact of 12h shift patterns in nursing: A scoping review

OBJECTIVESnTo provide a comprehensive scoping review of evidence of the impact and effectiveness of 12h shifts in the international nursing literature, supplemented by a review of evidence in other, non-nursing related industries.nnnDATA SOURCESnA search of the academic literature was undertaken in electronic databases (AMED, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Scopus, HMIC, the Cochrane Library, Business Source Premier, Econ Lit, ASSIA and Social Policy and Practice).nnnREVIEW METHODSnA total of 158 potentially relevant nursing research papers and reviews were published between 1973 and 2014. Two reviewers independently reviewed the articles, leaving 85 primary research studies and 10 review papers in the nursing field to be included in the scoping review. Thirty-one relevant primary research papers and reviews were also identified in the non-nursing related industries literature.nnnRESULTSnResearch into 12h nursing shifts fell within five broad themes: risks to patients, patient experience, risks to staff, staff experience and impact on the organisation of work. There was inconclusive evidence of the effects of 12h shift patterns in all five themes, with some studies demonstrating positive impacts and others negative or no impacts. This also mirrors the evidence in other, non-nursing related industries. The quality of research reviewed is generally weak and most studies focus on the risks, experience and work/life balance for staff, with few addressing the impact on patient outcomes and experience of care or work productivity.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThere is insufficient evidence to justify the widespread implementation or withdrawal of 12h shifts in nursing. It is not clearly understood where there are real benefits and where there are real and unacceptable risks to patients and staff. More research focusing on the impact of 12h nursing shifts on patient safety and experience of care and on the long term impact on staff and work organisation is required.

Interprofessional teamwork in stroke care: is it visible or important to patients and carers?

Abstract Interprofessional teamwork is seen in healthcare policy and practice as a key strategy for providing safe, efficient and holistic healthcare and is an accepted part of evidence-based stroke care. The impact of interprofessional teamwork on patient and carer experience(s) of care is unknown, although some research suggests a relationship might exist. This study aimed to explore patient and carer perceptions of good and poor teamwork and its impact on experiences of care. Critical incident interviews were conducted with 50 patients and 33 carers in acute, inpatient rehabilitation and community phases of care within two UK stroke care pathways. An analytical framework, derived from a realist synthesis of 13 ‘mechanisms’ (processes) of interprofessional teamwork, was used to identify positive and negative ‘indicators’ of teamwork. Participants identified several mechanisms of teamwork, but it was not a subject most talked about readily. This suggests that interprofessional teamwork is not a concept that is particularly important to stroke patients and carers; they do not readily perceive any impacts of teamwork on their experiences. These findings are a salient reminder that what might be expected by healthcare professionals to be important influences on experience may not be perceived to be so by patients and carers.

What aspects of intentional rounding work in hospital wards, for whom and in what circumstances? A realist evaluation protocol

Introduction Intentional rounding (IR) is a structured process whereby nurses in hospitals carry out regular checks, usually hourly, with individual patients using a standardised protocol to address issues of positioning, pain, personal needs and placement of items. The widespread implementation of IR across the UK has been driven by the recommendations of the Francis Inquiry although empirical evidence of its effectiveness is poor. This paper presents a protocol of a multimethod study using a realist evaluation approach to investigate the impact and effectiveness of IR in hospital wards on the organisation, delivery and experience of care from the perspective of patients, their family members and staff. Methods and analysis The study will be conducted in four phases. Phase 1: theory development using realist synthesis to generate hypotheses about what the mechanisms of IR may be, what particular groups may benefit most or least and what contextual factors might be important to its success or failure which will be tested in subsequent phases of the study. Phase 2: a national survey of all NHS acute trusts to explore how IR is implemented and supported across England. Phase 3: case studies to explore how IR is implemented ‘on the ground’, including individual interviews with patients, family members and staff, non-participant observation, retrieval of routinely collected patient outcomes and cost analysis. Phase 4: accumulative data analysis across the phases to scrutinise data for patterns of congruence and discordance and develop an overall evaluation of what aspects of IR work, for whom and in what circumstances. Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by NHS South East Coast—Surrey Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be published in a wide range of outputs targeted at key audiences, including patient and carer organisations, nursing staff and healthcare managers.

Realist synthesis of intentional rounding in hospital wards: exploring the evidence of what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why

Background Intentional rounding (IR) is a structured process whereby nurses conduct one to twou2009hourly checks with every patient using a standardised protocol. Objective A realist synthesis of the evidence on IR was undertaken to develop IR programme theories of what works, for whom, in what circumstances and why. Methods A three-stage literature search and a stakeholder consultation event was completed. A variety of sources were searched, including AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, HMIC, Google and Google Scholar, for published and unpublished literature. In line with realist synthesis methodology, each study’s ‘fitness for purpose’ was assessed by considering its relevance and rigour. Results A total of 44 papers met the inclusion criteria. To make the programme theories underpinning IR explicit, we identified eight a priori propositions: (1) when implemented in a comprehensive and consistent way, IR improves healthcare quality and satisfaction, and reduces potential harms; (2) embedding IR into daily routine practice gives nurses ‘allocated time to care’; (3) documenting IR checks increases accountability and raises fundamental standards of care; (4) when workload and staffing levels permit, more frequent nurse–patient contact improves relationships and increases awareness of patient comfort and safety needs; (5) increasing time when nurses are in the direct vicinity of patients promotes vigilance, provides reassurance and reduces potential harms; (6) more frequent nurse–patient contact enables nurses to anticipate patient needs and take pre-emptive action; (7) IR documentation facilitates teamwork and communication; and (8) IR empowers patients to ask for what they need to maintain their comfort and well-being. Given the limited evidence base, further research is needed to test and further refine these propositions. Conclusions Despite widespread use of IR, this paper highlights the paradox that there is ambiguity surrounding its purpose and limited evidence of how it works in practice.

Leadership of interprofessional stroke teams: how important is it for good team working?

Introduction:u2002Both motor and non-motor consequences of stroke can be debilitating. It is unclear which specific stroke impairments contribute to Quality of Life (QoL). We explored the relationship between motor and non-motor impairments and QoL at 3 months after stroke. n nMethod:u2002We conducted retrospective analyses of pooled clinical trial data from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) items described aphasia, inattention/neglect, sensory and visual impairment. Pure motor stroke was defined as arm and leg weakness, with or without dysarthria or facial palsy, where remaining NIHSS items were scored as normal. Using ordinal logistic regression, adjusting for age, medical history and thrombolysis, we examined the relationship between pure motor stroke versus motor stroke plus other impairments, on the European Quality of Life Score (EQ-5D) at 3 months. n nResults:u2002We included 1,091 stroke patients; 284 patients with pure motor stroke, and 807 with the following additional impairments: aphasia (nu2009=u200978); visual (nu2009=u200982); sensory (nu2009=u2009594); inattention/neglect (nu2009=u200953). No patients had aphasia, inattention/neglect, visual or sensory impairment in the absence of motor involvement. Inattention/neglect in addition to motor stroke was associated with poorer QoL (pu2009=u20090.009, OR for poorer QoLu2009=u20092.1, 95% CI [1.2, 3.6]) when compared to those with pure motor stroke. Presence of other non-motor impairments in addition to motor stroke showed no significant association with poorer QoL. n nConclusion:u2002The addition of aphasia, visual or sensory impairments to motor stroke did not appear to reduce QoL at 3 months, compared to those with pure motor stroke.