Search

Objective: To characterize the motivations of stakeholders from diverse sectors who engaged in cross-sector collaboration with an academic medical center.Data Source: Primary qualitative data (2014-2015) were collected from 22 organizations involved in a cross-sector diabetes intervention on the South Side of Chicago.Study Design: In-depth, semistructured interviews; participants included leaders from all stakeholder organization types (e.g., businesses, community development, faith-based) involved in the intervention.Data Collection Methods: Data were transcribed verbatim from audio and video recordings. Analysis was conducted using the constant comparison method, derived from grounded theory.Principal Findings: All stakeholders described collaboration as an opportunity to promote community health in vulnerable populations. Among diverse motivations across organization types, stakeholders described collaboration as an opportunity for: financial support, brand enhancement, access to specialized skills or knowledge, professional networking, and health care system involvement in community-based efforts. Based on our findings, we propose a framework for implementing a working knowledge of stakeholder motivations to facilitate effective cross-sector collaboration.Conclusions: We identified several factors that motivated collaboration across diverse sectors with health care systems to promote health in a high-poverty, urban setting. Understanding these motivations will be foundational to optimizing meaningful cross-sector collaboration and improving diabetes outcomes in the nation's most vulnerable communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reduction in door-to-needle (DTN) times in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator is associated with improved outcomes. We hypothesized that a learning collaborative would rapidly reduce DTN times at Chicago's primary stroke centers.Methods and Results: We analyzed data from all adult patients with out-of-hospital ischemic stroke hospitalized between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 and who received tissue-type plasminogen activator in the emergency department at 15 primary stroke centers in Chicago and 15 primary stroke centers in St. Louis. We implemented a structured learning collaborative in Chicago in quarter 1 of 2013 that included (1) a quality improvement leader, (2) stroke content expert, (3) multidisciplinary teams from each site, (4) a targeted goal for the program (DTN time <60 minutes in >50% of patients treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator), and (5) face-to-face meetings with on-site visits. We used interrupted time-series analysis to compare the impact of the learning collaborative on DTN times in Chicago pre- and post implementation and also concurrently versus St. Louis. We prespecified adjustment for mode of arrival, emergency medical services prenotification, and onset-to-arrival times. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. In adjusted analysis, the reduction in DTN time within 1 quarter of implementation was 15.5 minutes (P=0.046) at Chicago sites versus 1.17 minutes at St. Louis sites (P=0.601).Conclusions: Using a learning collaborative model at Chicago's 15 primary stroke centers, we observed major reductions in DTN times within 1 quarter of implementation. Regional collaboration and best practices sharing should be a model for rapid and sustainable system-wide quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential in providing safe and effective hospital care. Prior research reveals deficiencies in collaboration on medical teaching units.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an intervention, structured inter-disciplinary rounds (SIDR), on hospital care providers' ratings of collaboration and teamwork.Methods: The study was a controlled trial comparing an intervention medical teaching unit with a similar control unit. The intervention, SIDR, combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We surveyed providers on each unit and asked them to rate the quality of communication and collaboration they had experienced with other disciplines using a five-point ordinal scale. We also assessed the teamwork and safety climate using a validated instrument. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the impact on length of stay (LOS) and cost.Results: One hundred forty-seven of 159 (92%) eligible providers completed the survey. Although resident physicians on each unit rated the quality of communication and collaboration with nurses similarly, a greater percentage of nurses gave high ratings to the quality of collaboration with resident physicians on the intervention unit as compared to the control unit (74% vs. 44%; p = 0.02). Providers on the intervention unit rated the teamwork climate significantly higher as compared to the control unit (82.4 +/- 11.7 vs. 77.3 +/- 12.3; p = 0.01). The difference was explained by higher teamwork climate ratings on the part of nurses on the intervention unit (83.5 +/- 14.7 vs. 74.2 +/- 14.1; p = 0.005). Ratings of the safety climate were not significantly different between units. Adjusted LOS and hospital costs were not significantly different between units.Conclusions: SIDR had a positive effect on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork on a medical teaching unit. Further study is required to assess the impact of SIDR on patient safety measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]