The impact of context on interphysician collaboration and learning: A focused ethnography around hip fracture patients in the emergency department

IF 1.8 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
M. van der Ven , N. Looman , N. Ergun- Al Kafadji , S. Dalloyaux , O. Sir , J. Braspenning , C. Fluit , W. Kuijer-Siebelink , D. van Asselt
{"title":"The impact of context on interphysician collaboration and learning: A focused ethnography around hip fracture patients in the emergency department","authors":"M. van der Ven ,&nbsp;N. Looman ,&nbsp;N. Ergun- Al Kafadji ,&nbsp;S. Dalloyaux ,&nbsp;O. Sir ,&nbsp;J. Braspenning ,&nbsp;C. Fluit ,&nbsp;W. Kuijer-Siebelink ,&nbsp;D. van Asselt","doi":"10.1016/j.ssmqr.2025.100566","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Older patients with complex care needs are increasingly seen in the emergency department (ED), requiring patient-centered care that involves collaboration among multiple specialists. Inadequate interphysician collaboration (IPhC) can increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Although the ED presents opportunities for learning IPhC, it is unknown how this potential could be exploited. This study examines ED interactions between residents and supervisors caring for hip fracture patients to explore influencing contextual factors and how IPhC (learning) can be improved.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Interactions between residents and supervisors from anesthesiology, emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, trauma, and orthopedic surgery concerning eight hip fractures patients were observed. Thirteen residents and twelve supervisors participated in field interviews to discuss observed behavior. Thematic analysis was conducted on observation notes and interviews. Themes were discussed with participants in four focus groups to reflect on interactions and explore opportunities for improving (learning) IPhC.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Residents primarily performed their own tasks with remote supervision. Repeated tasks and contradictory treatment plans were common. Five contextual factors influenced IPhC interactions: swarm of unacquainted professionals, bustling ED environment, lack of coordination, silo mentality, and limited, hierarchical feedback culture. Residents viewed their IPhC interactions as sufficient, despite observed contradictions. In focus groups, participants recognized these issues but were unaware of the associated risks.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Interactions in acute care lack coordination and integration. The complex acute care context impedes connectivity between specialties and IPhC learning, which may lead to increased risk of adverse outcomes. To improve IPhC and learning, addressing both contextual aspects and improved role modelling and feedback are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74862,"journal":{"name":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","volume":"7 ","pages":"Article 100566"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SSM. Qualitative research in health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667321525000447","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Older patients with complex care needs are increasingly seen in the emergency department (ED), requiring patient-centered care that involves collaboration among multiple specialists. Inadequate interphysician collaboration (IPhC) can increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Although the ED presents opportunities for learning IPhC, it is unknown how this potential could be exploited. This study examines ED interactions between residents and supervisors caring for hip fracture patients to explore influencing contextual factors and how IPhC (learning) can be improved.

Methods

Interactions between residents and supervisors from anesthesiology, emergency medicine, geriatric medicine, trauma, and orthopedic surgery concerning eight hip fractures patients were observed. Thirteen residents and twelve supervisors participated in field interviews to discuss observed behavior. Thematic analysis was conducted on observation notes and interviews. Themes were discussed with participants in four focus groups to reflect on interactions and explore opportunities for improving (learning) IPhC.

Results

Residents primarily performed their own tasks with remote supervision. Repeated tasks and contradictory treatment plans were common. Five contextual factors influenced IPhC interactions: swarm of unacquainted professionals, bustling ED environment, lack of coordination, silo mentality, and limited, hierarchical feedback culture. Residents viewed their IPhC interactions as sufficient, despite observed contradictions. In focus groups, participants recognized these issues but were unaware of the associated risks.

Conclusion

Interactions in acute care lack coordination and integration. The complex acute care context impedes connectivity between specialties and IPhC learning, which may lead to increased risk of adverse outcomes. To improve IPhC and learning, addressing both contextual aspects and improved role modelling and feedback are needed.
背景对医师间合作和学习的影响:急诊科髋部骨折患者的集中民族志
有复杂护理需求的老年患者越来越多地出现在急诊科(ED),需要以患者为中心的护理,涉及多个专家之间的合作。医生间合作不足(IPhC)可增加不良后果的风险。虽然ED提供了学习IPhC的机会,但如何开发这种潜力尚不清楚。本研究探讨髋部骨折患者住院医师与督导医师之间的ED互动,以探讨影响情境因素及如何改善IPhC(学习)。方法观察8例髋部骨折患者住院医师与麻醉、急诊、老年、创伤、骨科等科室医师的互动情况。13名住院医师和12名主管参加了实地访谈,讨论观察到的行为。对观察笔记和访谈进行了专题分析。与四个焦点小组的参与者讨论了主题,以反思相互作用并探索改善(学习)IPhC的机会。结果住院医师在远程监护下主要完成自己的任务。重复的任务和相互矛盾的治疗方案是常见的。五个环境因素影响了IPhC的互动:一群不熟悉的专业人员、熙熙攘攘的ED环境、缺乏协调、筒仓心态和有限的、分层的反馈文化。居民认为他们的IPhC互动是充分的,尽管观察到矛盾。在焦点小组中,参与者认识到这些问题,但没有意识到相关的风险。结论急症护理互动缺乏协调与整合。复杂的急症护理环境阻碍了专业与IPhC学习之间的联系,这可能导致不良后果的风险增加。为了改善IPhC和学习,需要解决情境方面的问题,并改进角色建模和反馈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
163 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信