Team-Based Care and Patient Satisfaction in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

Will, Kristen K.; Johnson, Melissa; Lamb, Gerri

doi:10.17294/2330-0698.1695

Cited by 79 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…49 Similar to prior research, 50,51 we conducted responder analyses evaluating the proportion of participants who reported satisfaction scores within a half SD of the HCCQ score from the perfect score; achieving a perfect satisfaction score is commonly advocated as a metric for high quality in practice. 52,53 Because of the cluster-randomized study design, a linear mixed model method was applied. 54 The outcome was the response, and the group was the fixed effect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication With Older Patients With Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IMPORTANCE Older patients with cancer and their caregivers worry about the effects of cancer treatment on aging-related domains (eg, function and cognition). Quality conversations with oncologists about aging-related concerns could improve patient-centered outcomes. A geriatric assessment (GA) can capture evidence-based aging-related conditions associated with poor clinical outcomes (eg, toxic effects) for older patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE To determine whether providing a GA summary and GA-guided recommendations to oncologists can improve communication about aging-related concerns. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis cluster-randomized clinical trial enrolled 541 participants from 31 community oncology practices within the University of Rochester . Patients were aged 70 years or older with an advanced solid malignant tumor or lymphoma who had at least 1 impaired GA domain; patients chose 1 caregiver to participate. The primary outcome was assessed on an intent-to-treat basis.INTERVENTIONS Oncology practices were randomized to receive either a tailored GA summary with recommendations for each enrolled patient (intervention) or alerts only for patients meeting criteria for depression or cognitive impairment (usual care). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe predetermined primary outcome was patient satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns (modified Health Care Climate Questionnaire [score range, 0-28; higher scores indicate greater satisfaction]), measured after the first oncology visit after the GA. Secondary outcomes included the number of aging-related concerns discussed during the visit (from content analysis of audiorecordings), quality of life (measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale for patients and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey for caregivers), and caregiver satisfaction with communication about aging-related patient concerns. RESULTS A total of 541 eligible patients (264 women, 276 men, and 1 patient did not provide data; mean [SD] age, 76.6 [5.2] years) and 414 caregivers (310 women, 101 men, and 3 caregivers did not provide data; mean age, 66.5 [12.5] years) were enrolled. Patients in the intervention group were more satisfied after the visit with communication about agingrelated concerns (difference in mean score, 1.09 points; 95% CI, 0.05-2.13 points; P = .04); satisfaction with communication about aging-related concerns remained higher in the intervention group over 6 months (difference in mean score, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.04-2.16; P = .04). There were more aging-related conversations in the intervention group's visits (difference, 3.59; 95% CI, 2.22-4.95; P < .001). Caregivers in the intervention group were more satisfied with communication after the visit (difference, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.12-1.98; P = .03). Quality of life outcomes did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIncluding GA in oncology clinical visits for older adults with advanced cancer improves patient-centered and caregiver-centered communication about aging-related concerns. TRIAL...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Communication With Older Patients With Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…IBR is also distinct from uniprofessional rounding models (often comprised of only physicians or only nurses) that engage patients and families at the bedside but do not include the larger interprofessional team. Both of these rounding models have substantial and growing bodies of research associated with them (Bhamidipati et al, 2016;Gurses & Xiao, 2006;Holodinsky et al, 2015;Mercedes et al, 2016;Walton et al, 2016;Will et al, 2019). IBR incorporates aspects of both of these approaches into one model that is both interprofessional and patient-and family-centered.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals

Blakeney

Chu

White

et al. 2021

Journal of Interprofessional Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

show abstract

“…Recently within the media, individual health professionals have appealed to the public to remember that 'it's not just NHS physicians and nurses who need your kindness', but also other healthcare professionals and workers who are working hard behind the scenes with much lower salaries (FitzPatrick, 2020). Patient satisfaction has been linked with team-based care (Will et al, 2019), however patients' knowledge of the healthcare team is not always reflective of the diverse professions involved in their care (Parsons et al, 2016). Public perceptions of interprofessional teams and the attributes needed for their effectiveness seem to be underrepresented in the literature (Cutler et al, 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptions of who is in the healthcare team? A content analysis of social media posts during COVID-19 pandemic

El-Awaisi

O’Carroll

Koraysh

et al. 2020

Journal of Interprofessional Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social media posts can be used to explore public perceptions of interprofessional teams and healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to use social listening technique to explore unfiltered public perceptions of the professionals involved in healthcare teams during the COVID-19 pandemic, in a naturalistic online setting, and to elaborate on the emotional reactions in response to an online social media post. A cross-sectional retrospective review of comments on a specific social media post was conducted between 15 March and 28 April 2020 using summative content analysis. One image that was widely circulated on social media platforms with two questions: 'Who society thinks works at hospital? versus who really works at hospitals?' was selected. Three platforms were searched, Facebook®, Twitter®, and LinkedIn®. Only publicly available posts were included. Out of the initial 40 posts identified, 21 posts which had 1759 comments were analysed and 1576 were included for coding. Of the emerging nine themes, perceptions of who is in the team was the largest (40.5%, n = 639), followed by agreement (23.1%, n = 364) and feeling excluded (16.2%, n = 255). Of emotional expressions, 42.1% were positive and 57.9% negative. The most frequent emotions were frustration (54.4%, n = 857) followed by gratitude (16.3%, n = 257) and relief (15.9%, n = 250). The post brought considerable attention to the role of the interprofessional team and generated many feelings of frustration and exclusion. For this reason, the response to this social media post is very important and not to be overlooked. Healthcare professionals need to work together to strengthen their presence as an interprofessional team, united to deliver safe effective quality care for patients. The current COVID-19 pandemic and the media attention should be taken as an opportunity by the interprofessional community to work together to combat negative media stereotypes. Further research is warranted on public perceptions of the healthcare team.

show abstract

Team-Based Care and Patient Satisfaction in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Centered Research and Reviews (JPCRR) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal whose mission is to communicate clinical and bench research findings, with the goal of improving the quality of human health, the care of the individual patient, and the care of populations.

Cited by 79 publications

References 44 publications

Communication With Older Patients With Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment

Communication With Older Patients With Cancer Using Geriatric Assessment

A scoping review of new implementations of interprofessional bedside rounding models to improve teamwork, care, and outcomes in hospitals

Perceptions of who is in the healthcare team? A content analysis of social media posts during COVID-19 pandemic

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About