While co-design methods are becoming more popular in healthcare; there is a gap within the peer-reviewed literature on how to do co-design in practice. This paper addresses this gap by delineating the approach taken in the co-design of a collective leadership intervention to improve healthcare team performance and patient safety culture. Over the course of six workshops healthcare staff, patient representatives and advocates, and health systems researchers collaboratively co-designed the intervention. The inputs to the process, exercises and activities that took place during the workshops and the outputs of the workshops are described. The co-design method, while challenging at times, had many benefits including grounding the intervention in the real-world experiences of healthcare teams. Implications of the method for health systems research are discussed.

BackgroundResearch on team effectiveness in healthcare has focussed on whether effective teams yield positive outcomes for patients and on the effectiveness of team interventions to improve performance. Limited understanding exists of what works for whom within an effective team, or how and why the context in which the team operates enables team members both as individuals and as a collective to enact behaviours that promote positive outcomes.MethodsThis realist synthesis of the literature explores the relationship between team interventions, underlying teamwork mechanisms generated by those interventions, and the resultant impact on patient outcomes in an acute hospital context. A systematic search of five healthcare and healthcare management academic databases: PubMed, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ABInform, Emerald Management and three grey literature databases: ERIC, OpenDOAR and Open Grey was undertaken. Five experts in the field were also contacted to source relevant literature. Using PRISMA guidelines, relevant studies published between January 2006 and January 2017 were systematically searched by a team of three people. Drawing on realist methodology, data were synthesised using context, mechanism and outcome configurations as the unit of analysis to identify enablers and barriers to effective team interventions.ResultsOut of 3347 papers retrieved, 18 were included in the final synthesis. From these, five contextual enablers were identified: an inter-disciplinary focus and flattened hierarchy; effective communication; leadership support and alignment of team goals with organisational goals; credibility of intervention; and appropriate team composition with physician involvement. Ten recurring mechanisms were identified, the most frequently occurring of which was shared responsibility.ConclusionsThe advantage of using realist synthesis to extrapolate data from the literature is that it considers the context and mechanisms that will impact effectiveness of healthcare team interventions. This methodological approach provides a different perspective to other types of syntheses and offers insight as to why certain contextual elements may yield more success than others. Findings therefore tend to have more practical implications. Specificity of detail in terms of how external drivers impact on healthcare team interventions was limited in the articles extracted for analysis. This broader perspective is therefore an important consideration for future research.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3331-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionThere is accumulating evidence implicating the role of leadership in system failures that have resulted in a range of errors in healthcare, from misdiagnoses to failures to recognise and respond to patient deterioration. This has led to concerns about traditional hierarchical leadership structures and created an interest in the development of collective ways of working that distribute leadership roles and responsibilities across team members. Such collective leadership approaches have been associated with improved team performance and staff engagement. This research seeks to improve our understanding of collective leadership by addressing two specific issues: (1) Does collective leadership emerge organically (and in what forms) in a newly networked structure? and (2) Is it possible to design and implement collective leadership interventions that enable teams to collectively improve team performance and patient safety?Methods and analysisThe first phase will include a social network analysis, using an online survey and semistructured interviews at three time points over 12 months, to document the frequency of contact and collaboration between senior hospital management staff in a recently configured hospital group. This study will explore how the network of 11 hospitals is operating and will assess whether collective leadership emerges organically. Second, collective leadership interventions will be co-designed during a series of workshops with healthcare staff, researchers and patient representatives, and then implemented and evaluated with four healthcare teams within the hospital network. A mixed-methods evaluation will explore the impact of the intervention on team effectiveness and team performance indicators to assess whether the intervention is suitable for wider roll-out and evaluation across the hospital group.Ethics and disseminationFavourable ethical opinion has been received from the University College Dublin Research Ethics Committee (HREC-LS-16–116397/LS-16-20). Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals, national and international conferences, and to relevant stakeholders and interest groups.

Background: As realist methodology is still evolving, there is a paucity of guidance on how to conduct theory driven interviews. Realist researchers can therefore struggle to collect interview data that can make a meaningful contribution to refining their initial programme theory. Collecting data to inform realist Inital Programme Theories (IPTs) in healthcare contexts is further compounded due to the healthcare workers' busy work schedules. In this case study of team interventions in acute hospital contexts, we explore the benefits of using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT) in order to build and refine an initial programme theory. We contend that use of the CIT helps to draw on more specific experiences of "Key Informants" and therefore elicits richer and more relevant data for realist enquiry. Methods: The five steps of the CIT were mapped against realist methods guidance and adapted into an interview framework. Specifications to identify an incident as "critical" were agreed. Probes were embedded in the interview framework to confirm, refine and/or refute previous theories. Seventeen participants were interviewed and recordings were transcribed and imported for analysis into NVivo software. Using RAMESES guidelines, Context-Mechanism-Outcomes configurations were extrapolated from a total of 31 incidents. Results: We found that the CIT facilitated construction of an interview format that allowed participants to reflect on specific experiences of interest. We demonstrate how the CIT strengthened initial programme theory development as it facilitated the reporting of the specifics of team interventions and the contexts and mechanisms characteristic of those experiences. As new data emerged, it was possible to evolve previous theories synthesised from the literature as well as to explore new theories. Conclusions: Utilising a CIT framework paid dividends in terms of the relevance and usefulness of the data for refining the initial programme theory. Adapting the CIT questioning technique helped to focus the participants on the specifics relating to an incident allowing the interviewers to concentrate on probes to explore theories during the interview process. The CIT interview format therefore achieved its purpose and can be adapted for use within realist methodology.

Traditional hierarchical leadership has been implicated in patient safety failings internationally. Given that healthcare is almost wholly delivered by multidisciplinary teams, there have been calls for a more collective and team-based approach to the sharing of leadership and responsibility for patient safety. Although encouraging a collective approach to accountability can improve the provision of high quality and safe care, there is a lack of knowledge of how to train teams to adopt collective leadership. The Collective Leadership for Safety Cultures (Co-Lead) programme is a co-designed intervention for multidisciplinary healthcare teams. It is an open-source resource that offers teams a systematic approach to the development of collective leadership behaviours to promote effective teamworking and enhance patient safety cultures. This paper provides an overview of the co-design, pilot testing, and refining of this novel intervention prior to its implementation and discusses key early findings from the evaluation. The Co-Lead intervention is grounded in the real-world experiences and identified needs and priorities of frontline healthcare staff and management and was co-designed based on the evidence for collective leadership and teamwork in healthcare. It has proven feasible to implement and effective in supporting teams to lead collectively to enhance safety culture. This intervention overview will be of value to healthcare teams and practitioners seeking to promote safety culture and effective teamworking by supporting teams to lead collectively.

No abstract

Introduction: Literature on multi-disciplinary healthcare team interventions to improve quality and safety of care in acute hospital contexts tends to focus on evaluating the success of the intervention by assessing patient outcomes. In contrast, there is little focus on the team who delivered the intervention, how the team worked to deliver the intervention or the context in which it was delivered. In practice, there is therefore a poor understanding of why some interventions work and are sustained and why others fail. There is little emphasis in the literature on how the team delivering the intervention might impact success or failure. Given that team is the vehicle through which these interventions are introduced, it is important to understand interventions from their perspectives. This research seeks to deepen understanding of enablers and barriers for effective team interventions. Using two case studies, we will evaluate previously developed initial programme theories to understand, what worked for whom, in what conditions, why, to what extent and how? Methods and analysis: A realist evaluation approach will be employed to test the previously formed set of initial programme theories. Two multi-disciplinary acute hospital team interventions in two different geographical and organisational contexts will be identified. In case study 1, a theory based approach to interviewing will be used. In case study 2, interview transcripts obtained using a semi- structured approach for primary research purposes will undergo secondary analysis. This will enable a more sensitive look at patterns and variations in patterns of multi-disciplinary team interventions. Researchers will first iteratively interrogate each respective dataset to identify the characteristics or resources present within the specific context that influenced how the team intervention worked to produce particular outcomes. Data will then be synthesised across contexts in order to produce middle range theories and thereby more generalisable insights.

that is more likely to succeed in changing practice than traditional top-down approaches. Limitations: Sample size of 4 teams limits the generalisability of the study, but the next phase will be organisation-wide across two large hospital sites.