Representing complexity well: a story about teamwork, with implications for how we teach collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In order to be relevant and impactful, our research into health care teamwork needs to better reflect the complexity inherent to this area. This study explored the complexity of collaborative practice on a distributed transplant team. We employed the theoretical lenses of activity theory to better understand the nature of collaborative complexity and its implications for current approaches to interprofessional collaboration (IPC) and interprofessional education (IPE). METHODS: Over 4 months, two trained observers conducted 162 hours of observation, 30 field interviews and 17 formal interviews with 39 members of a solid organ transplant team in a Canadian teaching hospital. Participants included consultant medical and surgical staff and postgraduate trainees, the team nurse practitioner, social worker, dietician, pharmacist, physical therapist, bedside nurses, organ donor coordinators and organ recipient coordinators. Data collection and inductive analysis for emergent themes proceeded iteratively. RESULTS: Daily collaborative practice involves improvisation in the face of recurring challenges on a distributed team. This paper focuses on the theme of 'interservice' challenges, which represent instances in which the 'core' transplant team (those providing daily care for transplant patients) work to engage the expertise and resources of other services in the hospital, such as those of radiology and pathology departments. We examine a single story of the core team's collaboration with cardiology, anaesthesiology and radiology services to decide whether a patient is appropriate for transplantation and use this story to consider the team's strategies in the face of conflicting expectations and preferences among these services. CONCLUSIONS: This story of collaboration in a distributed team calls into question two premises underpinning current models of IPC and IPE: the notion that stable professional roles exist, and the ideal of a unifying objective of 'caring for the patient'. We suggest important elaborations to these premises as they are used to conceptualise and teach IPC in order to better represent the intricacy of everyday collaborative work in health care.
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 | 0.022 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".