Search

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

Background: Designing and implementing team interventions to improve quality and safety of care in acute hospital contexts is challenging. There is little emphasis in the literature on how contextual conditions impact interventions or how specific active ingredients of interventions impact on team members’ reasoning and enact change. This realist evaluation helps to deepen the understanding of the enablers and barriers for effective team interventions in these contexts. Methods: Five previously developed initial programme theories were tested using case studies from two diverse hospital contexts. Data were collected from theory driven interviews (n = 19) in an Irish context and from previously conducted evaluative interviews (n = 16) in a US context. Data were explored to unpack the underlying social and psychological drivers that drove both intended and unintended outcomes. Patterns of regularity were identified and synthesised to develop middle-range theories (MRTs). Results: Eleven MRTs demonstrate how and why intervention resources introduced in specific contextual conditions enact reasoning mechanisms and generate intended and unintended outcomes for patients, team members, the team and organisational leaders. The triggered mechanisms relate to shared mental models, openness, inclusivity and connectedness, leadership and engagement, social identity and intrinsic motivational factors. Conclusions: The findings provide valuable information for architects and facilitators of team interventions in acute hospital contexts, as well as help identify avenues for future research. Dataset: The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to their sensitive nature and potential identification of participants.

Introduction: Interdisciplinary academic teams perform better when competent in teamwork; however, there is a lack of best practices of how to introduce and facilitate the development of effective learning and functioning within these teams in academic environments. Methods: To close this gap, we tailored, implemented, and evaluated team science training in the year-long Engineering Innovation in Health (EIH) program at the University of Washington (UW), a project-based course in which engineering students across several disciplines partner with health professionals to develop technical solutions to clinical and translational health challenges. EIH faculty from the UW College of Engineering and the Institute of Translational Health Sciences’ (ITHS) Team Science Core codeveloped and delivered team science training sessions and evaluated their impact with biannual surveys. A student cohort was surveyed prior to the implementation of the team science trainings, which served as a baseline. Results: Survey responses were compared within and between both cohorts (approximately 55 students each Fall Quarter and 30 students each Spring Quarter). Statistically significant improvements in measures of self-efficacy and interpersonal team climate (i.e., psychological safety) were observed within and between teams. Conclusions: Tailored team science training provided to student-professional teams resulted in measurable improvements in self-efficacy and interpersonal climate both of which are crucial for teamwork and intellectual risk taking. Future research is needed to determine long-term impacts of course participation on individual and team outcomes (e.g., patents, start-ups). Additionally, adaptability of this model to clinical and translational research teams in alternate formats and settings should be tested.

Interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) approaches to health care are increasingly recognized as necessary to achieve the Triple Aim-improved health of the population, improved patient care experience, and improved affordability of care. This paper introduces and provides an overview of an interprofessional intervention to improve a healthcare team, healthcare system, and patient outcomes for hospitalized patients with heart failure. In this paper, we describe the overall project resulting from a workforce training grant and the proposed series of future papers resulting from the interprofessional intervention. Collectively, these papers will describe the results of a unique IPCP approach on team, system, and patient outcomes as well as describe and compare organizational and leadership traits that affect collaborative practice. Our hope is that the intervention approaches, evaluation results, and lessons learned described in these papers will help further the efforts to spread IPCP approaches to transforming health care.

Background In order to prepare current and future educators and clinicians to lead interprofessional education (IPE) and interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP), faculty and staff need training in collaborative approaches to developing, implementing, assessing, and sustaining high quality IPE across the interprofessional learning continuum. The Train-the-Trainer Interprofessional Team Development Program (T3-ITDP) is a 3.5-day program designed to develop expert IPE teams through interactive workshops, coaching, and the development and implementation of an IPE or IPCP (IPECP) project for their home institutions. Purpose The purpose of this research was to assess the impact of the T3-ITDP on the development and implementation of IPECP projects by participating teams. Methods The T3-ITDP impact survey was created and administered to collect data on the scope and impact of participant teams' projects, including learner and project outcomes, training methods, dissemination plans, assessment strategies, and teams' intentions to continue working together beyond the initial project. With human subject's approval, we invited 55 T3-ITDP participant teams to complete the impact survey. These teams were at least one year post-completion of the in-person portion of the program and thus had time to initiate their IPECP projects. Results Forty-one (74.5%) teams responded to the survey. Of those teams, 31 (76%) used T3-ITDP content and/or approaches to develop their IPECP projects that targeted learners across the interprofessional learning continuum. Sustainability of IPECP projects was supported through several mechanisms, including institutional support or incorporating IPECP activities into existing courses. Almost half of the teams worked together on new projects, and 74% of teams planned to repeat a newly developed activity. Discussion & conclusions Results of the T3-ITDP impact survey demonstrated that team-based, project-focused professional development catalyzed the development, implementation, and sustainment of new IPECP projects at academic and community institutions throughout the U.S.

The development of interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) environments requires a systematic, multi-pronged approach. Despite recognition of the need for IPCP, interventions that support its development are not well described in the literature. Leadership training is necessary for individuals and teams to build IPCP-supportive environments. This study describes the impact of a longitudinal series of leadership development workshops to strengthen IPCP and facilitate practice transformation. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 healthcare professionals who described ways in which the workshops influenced the team-based practice transformation. change process. Thematic analysis indicated that the workshops were instrumental in providing structure and opportunity for participants to learn skills, expand perspectives, and change behavior to improve team outcomes. Findings highlight the importance of supporting individual and team development over time and suggest that intentional, targeted coaching focused on relationship building and meeting the evolving needs of the team is critical to the implementation and sustainment of practice change.

Effective delivery of healthcare is highly interdependent within and between interprofessional (IP) care teams and the patients they serve. This is particularly true for complex health conditions such as advanced heart failure (AHF). Our Academic Practice Partnership received funding to carry out IP workforce development with inpatient AHF care teams. Our objectives were to (a) identify challenges in team functioning that affected communication and relationships among the AHF care teams, (b) collaboratively identify a focal work process in need of improvement, and (c) test whether facilitated the implementation of team training and work process changes would lead to improvements in team communication, relationships, and process outcomes. The health-care team identified implementation of structured IP bedside rounds (SIBR) as the preferred approach to improving collaborative care. Utilizing a cross-sectional pre/post design, changes in team communication and relationships before and after a team intervention that included TeamSTEPPS training and SIBR implementation, were assessed using a validated Relational Coordination (RC) survey. The study population included AHF care team members (n ~ 100) representing seven workgroups (e.g., nurses, pharmacists) from two inpatient cardiology units at a 450-bed academic medical center in the Pacific Northwest during 2015-2016. Improvements in RC scores were demonstrated across all seven RC dimensions from baseline (Year 1) to follow-up (Year 2). Percent change on each of the seven dimensions ranged from 3.57% to 9.85%. Changes were statistically significant for improvements between baseline and follow-up on all but one of the seven RC dimensions (shared knowledge). The IP team intervention was associated with improvements in RC from baseline to follow-up. Additional research is needed to assess patient perspectives and outcomes of the IP team intervention. Findings of this study are consistent with the growing body of RC and SIBR research and provide a useful model of an IP team-based intervention in clinical practice.

Introduction: Literature on multi-disciplinary healthcare team interventions to improve quality and safety of care in acute hospital contexts tends to focus on evaluating the success of the intervention by assessing patient outcomes. In contrast, there is little focus on the team who delivered the intervention, how the team worked to deliver the intervention or the context in which it was delivered. In practice, there is therefore a poor understanding of why some interventions work and are sustained and why others fail. There is little emphasis in the literature on how the team delivering the intervention might impact success or failure. Given that team is the vehicle through which these interventions are introduced, it is important to understand interventions from their perspectives. This research seeks to deepen understanding of enablers and barriers for effective team interventions. Using two case studies, we will evaluate previously developed initial programme theories to understand, what worked for whom, in what conditions, why, to what extent and how? Methods and analysis: A realist evaluation approach will be employed to test the previously formed set of initial programme theories. Two multi-disciplinary acute hospital team interventions in two different geographical and organisational contexts will be identified. In case study 1, a theory based approach to interviewing will be used. In case study 2, interview transcripts obtained using a semi- structured approach for primary research purposes will undergo secondary analysis. This will enable a more sensitive look at patterns and variations in patterns of multi-disciplinary team interventions. Researchers will first iteratively interrogate each respective dataset to identify the characteristics or resources present within the specific context that influenced how the team intervention worked to produce particular outcomes. Data will then be synthesised across contexts in order to produce middle range theories and thereby more generalisable insights.

IMPACT: Recognizing Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research in Promotion and Tenure Processes OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Academic institutions have traditionally focused on individual achievements for promotion. We present our effort on identifying and measuring attitudes on promotion and tenure (PT) criteria that values and rewards interdisciplinary research (IR). We have developed a toolkit to facilitate the recognition of IR in PT processes. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Our group reviewed appointment, promotion and tenure (APT) policies from each of the six Health Science Schools and the College of Engineering at the University of Washington (UW) to assess language of objective criteria and attributes of IR to guide APT committees in the evaluation of interdisciplinary researchers. We surveyed faculty about their attitudes relating to IR within the context of promotion and tenure. Interviews of department chairs and administrators about institutional policies and infrastructure that supports or inhibits IR, and current best practices, were conducted. We have developed toolkits for junior faculty, department chairs, external reviewers, and APT committees to facilitate rewarding IR at promotion. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Review of APT policies found criteria that recognizes IR for APT in three schools. 118 faculty responded to the survey (44% Professor, 26% Associate, and 37% eligible for APT committees). The majority of faculty reported they were currently conducting IR (95%), considered IR important (98%), and believed the UW faculty code should encourage IR (85%). Although a vast majority considered their units supportive of IR (>80%), less than half (43%) reported that their APT criteria provided examples that included participation in IR. Our survey also found that APT committees were challenged about best practices to reward IR, APT external reviewers struggle to evaluate individual vs team contributions, and individual faculty are challenged to describe contributions for APT within context of an interdisciplinary team. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: IR is conducted and valued by UW faculty; however, current structures, policies, and APT code do not facilitate IR for promotion and tenure. We have developed a toolkit for promotion-eligible faculty, chairs, external reviewers, and APT committees to facilitate IR. Our goal is to modify UW faculty code and unit APT criteria to recognize and reward IR.

IMPACT: This project successfully implemented a promising team science model by introducing and facilitating best practices to develop high functioning teams working to accelerate health innovations from bench to bedside. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The goal of this project was to improve the team science knowledge, skills, and attitudes of interdisciplinary engineering students (undergraduate and graduate) who were partnered with health professionals to develop technical solutions to translational health challenges during a year-long Engineering Innovation in Health (EIH) program. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We adapted, implemented, and evaluated team science training content and approaches in the EIH program at the University of Washington (UW). EIH faculty and the UW Institute of Translational Health Sciences’ (ITHS) Team Science Core co-developed and delivered highly interactive team science training modules and evaluated their impact with biannual surveys. A student cohort was surveyed prior to the implementation of the team science trainings, which served as a baseline. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize student demographics and survey responses within and between years. Median and interquartile range of responses to Likert-type questions were calculated, and Mann-Whitney U Tests (independent samples Wilcoxin Rank Sum Tests) were used to test for differences within and between years. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: During both the baseline and the team training year, student demographics were similar in terms of gender and past experience working in teams. Team training during the first year of implementation was well-received. Post-implementation surveys of students demonstrated measurable improvement in team dynamics, communication, and effectiveness; including, students reporting higher levels of psychological safety and self-efficacy within their teams. Comparisons within the team training year and between the baseline and team training years identified numerous instances in which differences were statistically significant. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Tailored team science training in an interdisciplinary EIH program was successful at improving psychological safety and self-efficacy among undergraduate and graduate students and offers a promising model for similar settings and audiences.

Collaborations to develop, implement, evaluate, replicate, and write about interprofessional education (IPE) activities within and across institutions are wonderful opportunities to experience teamwork, team communication, ethics and values, and the roles and responsibilities of interprofessional team writing. Just as effective communication in interprofessional team-based care is essential for providing safe, high-quality health care, similar communication strategies are necessary to produce high-quality scholarship of IPE curricula and activities. Relationship and communication issues that affect health care teams' abilities to work together effectively (e.g., hierarchy, exclusion, assumptions, non-responsiveness, biases, stereotypes and poor hand-offs of information) can also occur in interprofessional team writing. Between 1970 and 2010, interprofessional practice research publications increased by 2293%. Although there has been tremendous growth in the IPE literature, especially of articles that require collaborative writing, there have not been any papers addressing the challenges of interprofessional team writing. As more teams collaborate to develop IPE, there is a need to establish principles and strategies for effective interprofessional team writing. In this education and practice guide, a cross-institutional team of faculty, staff, and graduate students who have collaborated on externally funded IPE grants, conferences, products, and workshops will share lessons learned for successfully collaborating in interprofessional team writing.

The imperative need to train health professions faculty (educators and clinicians) to lead interprofessional education efforts and promote interprofessional team-based care is widely recognized. This need stems from a growing body of research that suggests collaboration improves patient safety and health outcomes. This short report provides an overview of a Train-the-Trainer Interprofessional Team Development Program (T3 Program) that equips faculty leaders with the skills to lead interprofessional education and interprofessional collaborative practice across the learning continuum. We also describe the history, approach, and early outcomes of this innovative program.

Effective interprofessional (IP) team-based care is critical to enhance the delivery of efficient care and improve nursing and IP team outcomes. This study aims to review the most recent IP team intervention studies that focused on outcomes related to nursing and IP teams. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched for existing literature published between January 2011 and December 2016. The search strategy was developed through both literature review and consultation with a health sciences librarian. This review included IP team intervention studies published in peer-reviewed journals and written in English. Studies were included if they conducted an IP team intervention for healthcare teams that include nurses and examined outcomes related to nursing and the IP teams. Based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, 41 articles were included for the final review. Two authors extracted data on the characteristics of IP team interventions, assessment methods, and their outcomes related to nursing and IP teams using a data abstraction tool developed by the research team. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We found that most of the included studies were conducted in the US and on inpatient units. A quasi-experimental study design was most commonly employed. Most studies conducted IP team training such as TeamSTEPPS® as a one-time activity. The most common outcomes measured were attitudes or perceptions about IP teamwork or communication, followed by patient-related outcomes, and knowledge or skills about IP competencies. The quality of the included studies was generally low. The findings from this review will contribute to understanding the characteristics of current IP intervention studies and call for IP scholars to design more rigorous yet realistic IP intervention studies.