Are characteristics of team members important for quality management of chronic patients at primary care level?

Klemenc–Ketiš, Zalika; Poplas-Susič, Antonija

doi:10.1111/jocn.14002

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 35 publications

(50 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies were conducted in 13 countries. The majority ( n = 11) were carried out in the United States of America (Buerhaus et al, 2018 ; Christiansen et al, 2016 ; Coddington et al, 2011 ; Farford et al, 2021 ; Jennings et al, 2016 ; Kinder, 2016 ; Kurtzman & Barnow, 2017 ; Mitchell et al, 2019 ; Poghosyan et al, 2018 ; Reuben et al, 2013 ; Wenger et al, 2011 ); four studies in the United Kingdom (Faulkner et al, 2016 ; Harris et al, 2015 ; Hawthorne et al, 2012 ; Stenner et al, 2011 ); three studies were Australian (Iles et al, 2014 ; Karnon et al, 2013 ; McCullough et al, 2020 ); three studies were undertaken in Canada (Dufour et al, 2020 ; Kosteniuk et al, 2017 ; Lawson et al, 2012 ); three in South Africa (Rabie et al, 2016 ; Rawat et al, 2018 ; Webb et al, 2019 ); and one in India (Fischer et al, 2015 ), Slovenia (Klemenc‐Ketis & Poplas‐Susič, 2017 ), The Netherlands (Vestjens et al, 2019 ), Sweden (Abrahamsson et al, 2015 ), Rwanda (Vasan et al, 2013 ), Argentina (Prestes et al, 2017 ), New Zealand (Azariah et al, 2013 ), and Switzerland (Gysin et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the studies ( n = 17) evaluated nursing PHC services operating within traditional physician‐led primary care community settings such as the General Practitioner clinic and other medical centers of care (Azariah et al, 2013 ; Buerhaus et al, 2018 ; Farford et al, 2021 ; Faulkner et al, 2016 ; Gysin et al, 2020 ; Harris et al, 2015 ; Hawthorne et al, 2012 ; Iles et al, 2014 ; Jennings et al, 2016 ; Karnon et al, 2013 ; Klemenc‐Ketis & Poplas‐Susič, 2017 ; Lawson et al, 2012 ; Mitchell et al, 2019 ; Poghosyan et al, 2018 ; Prestes et al, 2017 ; Reuben et al, 2013 ; Stenner et al, 2011 ). Fifteen studies were set in PHC settings such as remote community nursing services and urban community health centers and home visits (Abrahamsson et al, 2015 ; Christiansen et al, 2016 ; Coddington et al, 2011 ; Dufour et al, 2020 ; Fischer et al, 2015 ; Kosteniuk et al, 2017 ; Kinder, 2016 ; Kurtzman & Barnow, 2017 ; McCullough et al, 2020 ; Rabie et al, 2016 ; Rawat et al, 2018 ; Vasan et al, 2013 ; Vestjens et al, 2019 ; Webb et al, 2019 ; Wenger et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More commonly, evaluated PHC services included the nurse as a member of the multidisciplinary team. Often, studies aimed to evaluate nursing care by making comparisons between the care provided by nurses and that of other health professionals, most commonly a comparison between nurse practitioners and physicians (Buerhaus et al, 2018 ; Christiansen et al, 2016 ; Gysin et al, 2020 ; Iles et al, 2014 ; Jennings et al, 2016 ; Karnon et al, 2013 ; Klemenc‐Ketis & Poplas‐Susič, 2017 ; Kurtzman & Barnow, 2017 ; Lawson et al, 2012 ; Mitchell et al, 2019 ; Prestes et al, 2017 ; Reuben et al, 2013 ; Vestjens et al, 2019 ; Wenger et al, 2011 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An examination of primary health care nursing service evaluation using the Donabedian model: A systematic review

McCullough

Andrew

Genoni

et al. 2022

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nurses are key to the delivery of global primary health care services. However, there appears to be a lack of evaluation of primary health care nursing delivery models in the published literature. This evaluation is vital to the improvement of patient experiences, national and global health outcomes, and the justification of future investment in primary health care nursing services. The purpose of this review was to explore and analyze the literature that reports on the evaluation of primary health care nursing services, to ascertain the nature and utility of these evaluation methods, and identify opportunities for future research in this area. A systematic review of the published literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines, using the databases CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute, MEDLINE, and Proquest. Thirty‐two articles published between 2010 and 2022 were selected. Results were organized using the Donabedian model. A paucity of research into the evaluation of nurse‐led primary health care services was noted. Where evident, evaluation of primary health care nursing services tended to reflect the medical model. Medical outcomes measures dominated evaluation criteria including diagnosis rates, prescription costs, and disease outcomes. Primary health care principles such as service accessibility, cultural appropriateness, and availability were rarely used. The perspectives and experiences of nurses were not sought in service evaluation, including most of the nurse‐led services. Development of an evidence‐base of nursing primary health care services that are informed by the nursing experience and apply a framework of universal primary health care principles across the structure, process, and outcomes aspects of the service is recommended.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An examination of primary health care nursing service evaluation using the Donabedian model: A systematic review

McCullough

Andrew

Genoni

et al. 2022

Research in Nursing & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In 2011, an ongoing project at the primary care level in Slovenia was launched, with the support of the Ministry of Health. It introduced a new model of family medicine practice, where a family physicians’ working team, which at that time consisted of a family physician and a practice nurse, was extended by a nurse practitioner, with very well-defined competencies, working four hours per day or 0.5 full-time equivalents [ 8 ]. This approach implemented an interprofessional team practising person-centred care in Slovenian family medicine [ 8 – 12 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It introduced a new model of family medicine practice, where a family physicians’ working team, which at that time consisted of a family physician and a practice nurse, was extended by a nurse practitioner, with very well-defined competencies, working four hours per day or 0.5 full-time equivalents [ 8 ]. This approach implemented an interprofessional team practising person-centred care in Slovenian family medicine [ 8 – 12 ]. As a new team member was added to the family medicine practice team within the project, we developed a tool to measure patient satisfaction with the nurse practitioners, which evaluates their clinical approach, comprehensive approach, and patient-centred approach [ 9 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The development and validation of a new interprofessional team approach evaluation scale

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A team approach in health care involves an interprofessional approach to patient care. We wanted to develop and validate a tool that would evaluate the interprofessional team approach to patients of a family medicine team. We performed a descriptive study in three consecutive phases: a literature review, consensus development panels, and a cross-sectional validation study. Three rounds of consensus development panels were carried out in order to evaluate and adapt the initial scale. The cross-sectional study was carried out in all Slovenian family medicine practices, each invited 10 consecutive patients. In the quantitative study, 3,292 patients participated (a 50.7% response rate), of which 1,810 (55.0%) were women. The mean age of the sample was 53.1 ± 1.2 years. The final Cronbach’s alpha was 0.901. A factor analysis of the 9-item scale put forward two factors (Team Approach and Person-Centred approach) which explained 68.6% of the variance. This study provided a new scale for the evaluation of patient satisfaction with the interprofessional family medicine team from the patients’ point of view. It opened the question of family medicine team competencies and pointed towards the need to develop a family medicine interprofessional team competency framework and a comprehensive tool for its assessment.

show abstract

The trend in density of skilled health personnel in BRICS countries: Implication for China and India

Yan

Wang

et al. 2023

Health Planning & Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The similarities and differences in workforce trends in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) may offer reciprocal lessons for emerging economies. Methods: We used the Global Health Observatory data to assess the secular trends between 2001 and 2017 in the number of skilled health personnel (SHP: doctors, nurses/ midwives) in BRICS compared to the average of Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Results: Substantial efforts have been made in BRICS to increase SHP availability, as demonstrated by an average exponential growth rate (AEGR) > 0.03 in Brazil, China, and India compared to 0.01 in OECD. With an AEGR as high as 0.07 after 2008, China reached the level of SHP availability commensurate with the sustainable development goals (SDGs) in 2017. Other than China, BRICS countries had a mean number of nurses and midwives per doctor between 2001 and 2017 higher than or comparable to the OECD average (2.78). The corresponding number in China was 1.04 in 2017, lower than 2.21 in India in 2001. Conclusions: With China as the exception, BRICS countries maintained a sustainable skills mix of SHPs. China reached the level of SHP availability commensurate with the SDGs, but SHP's skill mix was imbalanced.

show abstract

Are characteristics of team members important for quality management of chronic patients at primary care level?

Abstract: The quality of care of chronic patients depends on the specific characteristics of the members of the team, which should be taken into account when planning quality improvements.

Cited by 5 publications

References 35 publications

An examination of primary health care nursing service evaluation using the Donabedian model: A systematic review

An examination of primary health care nursing service evaluation using the Donabedian model: A systematic review

The development and validation of a new interprofessional team approach evaluation scale

The trend in density of skilled health personnel in BRICS countries: Implication for China and India

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About