Interprofessional Team Conflict Resolution: A Critical Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although concern related to conflicts within health care teams has been discussed in the literature, most studies have focused on individuals' personal conflict management style identification or on managers resolving workplace conflicts between parties. The purpose of this review was to identify significant components in the field of conflict with particular attention to conceptual findings that may be integrated into understanding interprofessional health care team conflict and its resolution. METHODS: A critical review of the conflict literature across many fields was undertaken using the method identified by Grant and Booth, incorporating literature-search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis. RESULTS: This critical review explored existing models and schools of thought to provide an overview of how conflict is conceptualized, its focus on interpersonal and workplace issues, team conflict application and training in team conflict resolution, and finally a summary of this review's contribution to interprofessional health care team conflict and its resolution. CONCLUSIONS: Team conflict is comprised of three forms-relationship, task, and process. When team building occurs that incorporates training in the use of an adapted constructive controversy approach, there is a greater opportunity to enhance the quality of a cooperative approach to patients' care planning. Training in team conflict resolution is needed as a key ingredient to ensure all team members can enhance the effectiveness and quality of interprofessional client-centered collaborative practice. This benefits not only the health providers in the team, but also their clients/patients who are recipients of their shared teamwork.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".