BackgroundInterdisciplinary team working is of paramount importance in the reform of primary care in order to provide cost-effective and comprehensive care. However, international research shows that it is not routine practice in many healthcare jurisdictions. It is imperative to understand levers and barriers to the implementation process. This review examines interdisciplinary team working in practice, in primary care, from the perspective of service providers and analyses 1 barriers and facilitators to implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care and 2 the main research gaps.Methods and findingsAn integrative review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Following a search of 10 international databases, 8,827 titles were screened for relevance and 49 met the criteria. Quality of evidence was appraised using predetermined criteria. Data were analysed following the principles of framework analysis using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which has four constructs: sense making, enrolment, enactment, and appraisal. The literature is dominated by a focus on interdisciplinary working between physicians and nurses. There is a dearth of evidence about all NPT constructs apart from enactment. Physicians play a key role in encouraging the enrolment of others in primary care team working and in enabling effective divisions of labour in the team. The experience of interdisciplinary working emerged as a lever for its implementation, particularly where communication and respect were strong between professionals.ConclusionA key lever for interdisciplinary team working in primary care is to get professionals working together and to learn from each other in practice. However, the evidence base is limited as it does not reflect the experiences of all primary care professionals and it is primarily about the enactment of team working. We need to know much more about the experiences of the full network of primary care professionals regarding all aspects of implementation work.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015019362.

Background.There are increasing imperatives for patients and members of the public to engage as partners in identifying health research priorities. The use of participatory methods to engage stakeholders in health care in research prioritization is not commonly reported.Objective.This article analyses the use of World Cafés as a participatory method for research prioritization with marginalized communities in Ireland and the USA.Methods.The principles of purposeful and snowball sampling were followed in both settings and a diverse range of community and health care stakeholders participated (n = 63 Ireland and n = 55 USA). The principles for a classic World Café were employed but there were novel features in each setting as well. Stewart et al.’s (Patients’ and clinicians’ research priorities. Health Expect 2011; 14: 439–48, conceptual framework for patient engagement was adapted and used to comparatively analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the World Cafés, focusing on agenda setting, engagement with research processes, interactional features and outputs.Results.Design principles for World Cafés were found to align with high-quality patient engagement for research prioritization in both settings. They served to facilitate meaningful collaboration among stakeholder groups in research prioritization (research agenda setting) and explored research priorities (engagement with research). The café ambience, emphasis on hospitality and self-facilitation created an environment for dialogues within and across participating groups (interactional features). There was a commitment to follow-up actions with reference to possible subsequent research (outputs).Conclusions.The World Café is a valuable, participatory, flexible method that can be used with community and health care stakeholders for research prioritization with marginalized communities.

No abstract

No abstract

There is evidence of significant problems that disrupt team formation and functioning that warrants more comprehensive research.

BackgroundPrimary care is the cornerstone of healthcare reform with policies across jurisdictions promoting interdisciplinary team working. The effective implementation of such health policies requires understanding the perspectives of all actors. However, there is a lack of research about health professionals’ views of this process. This study compares Primary Healthcare Professionals’ perceptions of the effectiveness of the Primary Care Strategy and Primary Care Team (PCT) implementation in Ireland.MethodsDesign and Setting: e-survey of (1) General Practitioners (GPs) associated with a Graduate Medical School (N = 100) and (2) Primary Care Professionals in 3 of 4 Health Service Executive (HSE) regions (N = 2309). After piloting, snowball sampling was used to administer the survey. Descriptive analysis was carried out using SPSS. Ratings across groups were compared using non-parametric tests.ResultsThere were 569 responses. Response rates varied across disciplines (71 % for GPs, 22 % for other Primary Healthcare Professionals (PCPs). Respondents across all disciplines viewed interdisciplinary working as important. Respondents agreed on lack of progress of implementation of formal PCTs (median rating of 2, where 1 is no progress at all and 5 is complete implementation). GPs were more negative about the effectiveness of the Strategy to promote different disciplines to work together (median rating of 2 compared to 3 for clinical therapists and 3.5 for nurses, P = 0.001). Respondents identified resources and GP participation as most important for effective team working. Protected time for meetings and capacity to manage workload for meetings were rated as very important factors for effective team working by GPs, clinical therapists and nurses. A building for co-location of teams was rated as an important factor by nurses and clinical therapists though GPs rated it as less important. Payment to attend meetings and contractual arrangements were considered important factors by GPs but not by nurses or clinical therapists.ConclusionPCPs and GPs agree there is limited PCT implementation. GPs are most negative about this implementation. There is some disagreement about which resources are most important for effective PCT working. These findings provide valuable data for clinicians and policy makers about implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0541-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract