Kristen K Will1, Melissa L Johnson2, Gerri Lamb3. 1. College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ. 2. Library, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ. 3. Center for Advancing Interprofessional Practice, Education and Research, Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Limited research examining the relationship between team-based models of care and patient satisfaction in the hospital setting is available. The purpose of this literature review was to explore this relationship as well as the relationships between team composition, team-based interventions, patient satisfaction, and other outcomes of care when measured as part of the study. METHODS: A systematic appraisal of research studies published through February 2017 was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, Ovid, gray literature and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) experimental (randomized control trials), quasi-experimental, or non-experimental (cross-sectional) study design; 2) team-based care interventions; 3) hospital setting; 4) patient satisfaction measured as an outcome; and 5) published in English. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 15,247 citations. In total, 142 articles were retrieved for full-text screening; 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, 57% of the studies identified a statistically significant improvement in patient satisfaction associated with team-based care. Team-based care interventions ranged from single team activities such as multidisciplinary rounds to comprehensive team-based models of care. Patient satisfaction scores were greater with teams that had more than two professions and more comprehensive team-based models. About one-quarter of studies that measured patient satisfaction and at least one additional outcome demonstrated improvement in both. CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care may positively affect patient satisfaction. Team composition and type of team intervention appears to influence the strength of the relationship. Improvements in satisfaction are not consistently accompanied by improvements in other outcomes.
PURPOSE: Limited research examining the relationship between team-based models of care and patient satisfaction in the hospital setting is available. The purpose of this literature review was to explore this relationship as well as the relationships between team composition, team-based interventions, patient satisfaction, and other outcomes of care when measured as part of the study. METHODS: A systematic appraisal of research studies published through February 2017 was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, Ovid, gray literature and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) experimental (randomized control trials), quasi-experimental, or non-experimental (cross-sectional) study design; 2) team-based care interventions; 3) hospital setting; 4) patient satisfaction measured as an outcome; and 5) published in English. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 15,247 citations. In total, 142 articles were retrieved for full-text screening; 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, 57% of the studies identified a statistically significant improvement in patient satisfaction associated with team-based care. Team-based care interventions ranged from single team activities such as multidisciplinary rounds to comprehensive team-based models of care. Patient satisfaction scores were greater with teams that had more than two professions and more comprehensive team-based models. About one-quarter of studies that measured patient satisfaction and at least one additional outcome demonstrated improvement in both. CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care may positively affect patient satisfaction. Team composition and type of team intervention appears to influence the strength of the relationship. Improvements in satisfaction are not consistently accompanied by improvements in other outcomes.
Authors: David B Preen; Belinda E S Bailey; Alan Wright; Peter Kendall; Martin Phillips; Joseph Hung; Randall Hendriks; Annette Mather; Elizabeth Williams Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Alan J Forster; Heather D Clark; Alex Menard; Natalie Dupuis; Robert Chernish; Natasha Chandok; Asmat Khan; Megan Letourneau; Carl van Walraven Journal: Am J Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Glenn Gade; Ingrid Venohr; Douglas Conner; Kathleen McGrady; Jeffrey Beane; Robert H Richardson; Marilyn P Williams; Marcia Liberson; Mark Blum; Richard Della Penna Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Erin Abu-Rish Blakeney; Frances Chu; Andrew A White; G Randy Smith; Kyla Woodward; Danielle C Lavallee; Rachel Marie E Salas; Genevieve Beaird; Mayumi A Willgerodt; Deborah Dang; John M Dent; Elizabeth Ibby Tanner; Nicole Summerside; Brenda K Zierler; Kevin D O'Brien; Bryan J Weiner Journal: J Interprof Care Date: 2021-10-10 Impact factor: 2.338
Authors: Samantha T Robertson; Ingrid C M Rosbergen; Andrew Burton-Jones; Rohan S Grimley; Sandra G Brauer Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Ira M Lubin; J Rex Astles; Shahram Shahangian; Bereneice Madison; Ritchard Parry; Robert L Schmidt; Matthew L Rubinstein Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2021-01-06
Authors: Agnieszka Barańska; Urszula Religioni; Bartłomiej Drop; Magdalena Bogdan; Anna Kłak; Andrzej Warunek; Jolanta Herda; Ewelina Firlej; Piotr Merks Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-15 Impact factor: 4.614