Andreas Xyrichis1, Emma Ream. 1. King's College London, Florence Nightingale School of Nursing and Midwifery, London, UK. andreas.xyrichis@kcl.ac.uk
Abstract
AIM: This paper is a report of an analysis of the concept of teamwork. BACKGROUND: Teamwork is seen as an important facilitator in delivering quality healthcare services internationally. However, research studies of teamwork in health care are criticized for lacking a basic conceptual understanding of what this concept represents. A universal definition for healthcare settings and professionals is missing from published literature. METHOD: Walker and Avant's approach was used to guide this concept analysis. Literature searches used bibliographic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Proquest CSA), internet search engines (GoogleScholar), and hand searches. Literature published between 1976 and 2006 was reviewed but only material in English was included. FINDINGS: Based on the analysis undertaken, teamwork is proposed as a dynamic process involving two or more healthcare professionals with complementary backgrounds and skills, sharing common health goals and exercising concerted physical and mental effort in assessing, planning, or evaluating patient care. This is accomplished through interdependent collaboration, open communication and shared decision-making, and generates value-added patient, organizational and staff outcomes. CONCLUSION: Praising the value of teamwork without a common understanding of what this concept represents endangers both research into this way of working and its effective utilization in practice. The proposed definition helps reconcile discrepancies between how this concept is understood by nurses and doctors, as well as allied health professionals. A common understanding can facilitate communication in educational, research and clinical settings and is imperative for improving clarity and validity of future research.
AIM: This paper is a report of an analysis of the concept of teamwork. BACKGROUND: Teamwork is seen as an important facilitator in delivering quality healthcare services internationally. However, research studies of teamwork in health care are criticized for lacking a basic conceptual understanding of what this concept represents. A universal definition for healthcare settings and professionals is missing from published literature. METHOD: Walker and Avant's approach was used to guide this concept analysis. Literature searches used bibliographic databases (Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science, Proquest CSA), internet search engines (GoogleScholar), and hand searches. Literature published between 1976 and 2006 was reviewed but only material in English was included. FINDINGS: Based on the analysis undertaken, teamwork is proposed as a dynamic process involving two or more healthcare professionals with complementary backgrounds and skills, sharing common health goals and exercising concerted physical and mental effort in assessing, planning, or evaluating patient care. This is accomplished through interdependent collaboration, open communication and shared decision-making, and generates value-added patient, organizational and staff outcomes. CONCLUSION: Praising the value of teamwork without a common understanding of what this concept represents endangers both research into this way of working and its effective utilization in practice. The proposed definition helps reconcile discrepancies between how this concept is understood by nurses and doctors, as well as allied health professionals. A common understanding can facilitate communication in educational, research and clinical settings and is imperative for improving clarity and validity of future research.
Authors: Margaretha Wilhelmsson; Sari Ponzer; Lars-Ove Dahlgren; Toomas Timpka; Tomas Faresjö Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2011-04-21 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Francesca E Duncan; Jennifer K Jozefik; Alison M Kim; Jennifer Hirshfeld-Cytron; Teresa K Woodruff Journal: US Obstet Gynecol Date: 2011-01-01
Authors: Mark F Harris; Bibiana C Chan; Christopher Daniel; Qing Wan; Nick Zwar; Gawaine Powell Davies Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-04-27 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ann M O'Hare; Jackie Szarka; Lynne V McFarland; Janelle S Taylor; Rebecca L Sudore; Ranak Trivedi; Lynn F Reinke; Elizabeth K Vig Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2016-04-15 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Rachel D A Havyer; Majken T Wingo; Nneka I Comfere; Darlene R Nelson; Andrew J Halvorsen; Furman S McDonald; Darcy A Reed Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 5.128