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.
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.
Background: Research on maternity care often focuses on factors that prevent good communication and collaboration and rarely includes important stakeholders – parents – as co-researchers. To understand how professionals and parents in Dutch maternity care accomplish constructive communication and collaboration, we examined their interactions in the clinic, looking for “good practice”. Methods: We used the video-reflexive ethnographic method in 9 midwifery practices and 2 obstetric units. Findings: We conducted 16 meetings where participants reflected on video recordings of their clinical interactions. We found that informal strategies facilitate communication and collaboration: “talk work” – small talk and humour – and “work beyond words” – familiarity, use of sight, touch, sound, and non-verbal gestures. When using these strategies, participants noted that it is important to be sensitive to context, to the values and feelings of others, and to the timing of care. Our analysis of their ways of being sensitive shows that good communication and collaboration involves “paradoxical care”, e.g., concurrent acts of “regulated spontaneity” and “informal formalities”. Discussion: Acknowledging and reinforcing paradoxical care skills will help caregivers develop the competencies needed to address the changing demands of health care. The video-reflexive ethnographic method offers an innovative approach to studying everyday work, focusing on informal and implicit aspects of practice and providing a bottom up approach, integrating researchers, professionals and parents. Conclusion: Good communication and collaboration in maternity care involves “paradoxical care” requiring social sensitivity and self-reflection, skills that should be included as part of professional training.
