Nursing perspectives on factors influencing interdisciplinary teamwork in the <scp>C</scp>anadian primary care setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study investigated nurses' roles and their perspectives on the factors that influence interdisciplinary teamwork within Canadian primary care setting. BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary teams have shown to lead to better system- and patient-level outcomes and, accordingly, have became important aspects of healthcare systems especially within primary care settings. Nurses play a key role in these primary care teams, particularly with respect to chronic disease management. DESIGN: A focused ethnography design using semi-structured individual interviews was conducted. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 20 primary care nurses between July 2010-May 2011. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and content and thematic analysis was performed. RESULTS: Nurses experienced increasing scope of practice and professional responsibility as they transitioned into the primary care setting. Nine major roles of primary care nurses were identified. Several factors that facilitate or hinder teamwork were identified and categorised under four theme areas: (1) organisation/leadership (e.g. having common goals and mandate, unclear descriptions of team members' roles); (2) team relationships (e.g. closed loop of communication, trust, respect); (3) process/support (e.g. unclear referral process and reporting structure, large patient panels); and (4) physical environment (e.g. decentralised model of care). CONCLUSIONS: Nurses' roles within primary care setting appear to be focused mainly on case management. Minimal orientation and lack of preparation of nurses for their roles, vagueness of these roles among the interdisciplinary primary care team members and lack of communication appeared to be among the most important factors that influence teamwork and nurses' functioning within these teams. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Given that nurses play a key role in interdisciplinary primary care teams, particularly in managing chronic disease patients, approaches to improve chronic disease management and care of these patients should incorporate strategies to ensure effective preparation of these nurses for their roles within these teams and settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".