Interprofessional Primary Care Teamwork: Investigating Experiences of Health Care Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context: Effective IP collaborative practice and teamwork is proposed to improve quality of care, patient safety and health outcomes. While interprofessional teamwork has been evident in hospitals for some time, a better understanding of team dynamics and factors influencing IP practice in primary care settings is needed especially from the perspectives of primary care providers, including those training future clinicians. Objective: The primary objective of this research was to explore the experiences of providers regarding the processes fostering team-based care in a single academic primary care clinic. Study Design and Analysis: A phenomenological case study approach aimed to identify the factors that foster team-based care as conveyed through individual interviews and focus groups. Data was inductively coded, based on interpretative phenomenological analysis. Setting: All data was collected on site at a University of Manitoba academic primary care teaching clinic. Population Studied: Data was gathered from eleven members of the interdisciplinary team representing five disciplines. Outcome Measures: Eight individual interviews and one focus group discussion were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Results: This team’s care was conceptualized as an interrelated web and is framed by three themes: 1) modalities of communication that support team-based care; 2) development of interdependent working relationships and; 3) the administrative and organizational support that is required to achieve the desired team stability. Modelling interprofessional practice and collaboration benefited both team members and family medicine residents, playing an essential role in enabling a more diverse set of skills while challenging the power hierarchy. Conclusions: Working together, health care professionals can attend to a wide range of patient’s health care needs in an efficient and effective manner. The overarching concept of an inter-related web characterizes interprofessional teamwork, while effective communication and collaboration support interprofessional collaboration in primary care 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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".