There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.
Abstract
In healthcare settings, suboptimal interprofessional teamwork and communication contribute
to unsafe care and avoidable harm. Interprofessional teamwork is essential in high-risk
clinical areas such as the emergency department (ED). The aims of this study were
to describe interprofessional teamwork in a hospital ED and to evaluate factors influencing
interprofessional communication before and after implementation of a department-wide
multifaceted intervention. Structured observations were undertaken during 2015/16
and 2019. Differences in interprofessional communication practices, teamwork, and
sources of interruptions were compared before and after the intervention. The following
domains were surveilled: (a) healthcare professionals (HCPs) communication initiatives,
(b) HCPs' contribution to patient assessment, (c) interprofessional communication
processes, and (d) team interruptions. The intervention included strategies to enable
use of communication tools, changes to team structures, changes in work environment,
ethical principles, and establishment of a code of professional conduct during interprofessional
communication. Team interruptions significantly decreased post-intervention, and our
findings suggest that organizational changes affect domains of teamwork. Statistically
significant differences were observed in the initiated communication pre-intervention
and contribution to patient assessment significantly increased post-intervention.
Multifaceted organizational interventions can positively affect interprofessional
team communication and work-flow in the ED, thus patient safety and quality of care
can be improved.
Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
Background Emergency department crowding is a major global healthcare issue. There is much debate as to the causes of the phenomenon, leading to difficulties in developing successful, targeted solutions. Aim The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyse and summarise the findings of peer-reviewed research studies investigating the causes and consequences of, and solutions to, emergency department crowding. Method The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A structured search of four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science) was undertaken to identify peer-reviewed research publications aimed at investigating the causes or consequences of, or solutions to, emergency department crowding, published between January 2000 and June 2018. Two reviewers used validated critical appraisal tools to independently assess the quality of the studies. The study protocol was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2017: CRD42017073439). Results From 4,131 identified studies and 162 full text reviews, 102 studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority were retrospective cohort studies, with the greatest proportion (51%) trialling or modelling potential solutions to emergency department crowding. Fourteen studies examined causes and 40 investigated consequences. Two studies looked at both causes and consequences, and two investigated causes and solutions. Conclusions The negative consequences of ED crowding are well established, including poorer patient outcomes and the inability of staff to adhere to guideline-recommended treatment. This review identified a mismatch between causes and solutions. The majority of identified causes related to the number and type of people attending ED and timely discharge from ED, while reported solutions focused on efficient patient flow within the ED. Solutions aimed at the introduction of whole-of-system initiatives to meet timed patient disposition targets, as well as extended hours of primary care, demonstrated promising outcomes. While the review identified increased presentations by the elderly with complex and chronic conditions as an emerging and widespread driver of crowding, more research is required to isolate the precise local factors leading to ED crowding, with system-wide solutions tailored to address identified causes.
scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.