Primary health care teams: team members' perceptions of the collaborative process

2004 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry L Dieleman ◽  
Karen B Farris ◽  
David Feeny ◽  
Jeffrey A Johnson ◽  
Ross T Tsuyuki ◽  
...  
1998 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Button ◽  
Brenda Roe ◽  
Christine Webb ◽  
Tony Frith ◽  
David Colin‐Thome ◽  
...  

1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (S3) ◽  
pp. S54-S57
Author(s):  
T. Siann ◽  
E.M. Duncan ◽  
F. Sullivan ◽  
D. Matthews ◽  
D.T. Cromie

1995 ◽  
Vol 54 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Shiroyama ◽  
Lorna McKee ◽  
Linda McKie

The evaluation of health promotion in primary health care has been brought to the forefront of debates in Scotland with the introduction of an evaluation component in every project funded under the Development of Health Care Fund scheme. The level of skills and empathy with evaluation approaches and research methods varies considerably between primary health care team members, and consequently academic researchers are increasingly being drawn into NHS debates on evaluation and health promotion in primary health care. In this article the authors draw upon their respective experiences as evaluators to highlight specific issues and concerns in the evaluation of health promotion in a primary health care setting.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Emily Mauldon

This article discusses problems a research team had managing their ethical obligations during a short project, and considers the implications of these problems for better understanding and carrying out ethical research in the future. Two key points will be proposed. Initially, it will be argued that the culture of ethical research as articulated within the research community may not be universally accepted within the primary health care sector. The nature of "ethical conduct" within clinical practice, service provision and research is not the same. Further, practical difficulties the researchers experienced while trying to gain approval from ethics committees and implement the proposed research plan highlight some ways in which institutional ethical review processes are structurally unsuited to the requirements of small collaborative projects. Understanding the different ways in which the term "ethics" is used will allow for a more expedient translation of concepts between different health professionals. Recognising the practical constraints ethical review places on the research process may help reduce some of the frustration primary health care professionals can experience when faced with the requirements of research ethics committees. Due to the history of, and cultural commitment to, ethical research within the university sector, those with formal academic training in research are well placed to assume responsibility for managing the ethics process when involved in cross-sectoral research. This responsibility may include the need to educate team members and study participants about the importance of research ethics.


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 ◽  
pp. 42 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daiane Cortêz Raimondi ◽  
Suelen Cristina Zandonadi Bernal ◽  
Laura Misue Matsuda

OBJECTIVE: Analyze if the patient safety culture among professionals in the primary health care differs among health care teams. METHODS: Cross-sectional and quantitative study conducted in April and May 2017, in a city in Southern Brazil. A total of 144 professionals who responded to the questionnaire “Survey on Patient Safety Culture in Primary Health Care” participated in the study. Data were analyzed in the Statistical Analysis Software program and expressed in percentage of positive responses. The ethical principles established for research with human beings were applied. RESULTS: Patient safety culture is positive among 50.81% of the professionals, and the dimensions “your health service” (63.39%) and “patient safety and quality” (61.22%) obtained the highest average of positive responses. Significant differences were found between the family health and oral health teams (α = 0.05 and p < 0.05), in the dimensions “patient safety” (p = 0.0274) and “work at the health service” (p = 0.0058). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that, although close to the average, patient safety culture among professionals in the Primary Health Care is positive and that there are differences in safety culture between family health and oral health teams in comparison with the primary health care teams.


Author(s):  
Catherine Donnelly ◽  
Rachelle Ashcroft ◽  
Amanda Mofina ◽  
Nicole Bobbette ◽  
Carol Mulder

Abstract Aim: The aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers. Background: Despite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models. Methods: A qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question. Findings: A total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).


1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (S3) ◽  
pp. S54-S57 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Siann ◽  
E.M. Duncan ◽  
F. Sullivan ◽  
D. Matthews ◽  
D.T. Cromie

2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Farrell ◽  
Natalie Ward ◽  
Naomi Dore ◽  
Grant Russell ◽  
Robert Geneau ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document