评估自我管理的综合社区团队。

Keith Hurst, Jackie Ford, Cath Gleeson
{"title":"评估自我管理的综合社区团队。","authors":"Keith Hurst,&nbsp;Jackie Ford,&nbsp;Cath Gleeson","doi":"10.1108/02689230210450016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>After briefly describing self-managed integrated community teams, the authors explore potential and actual methods of evaluating their structures, processes and outcomes. Primary health care staff in three comparable sites were studied using non-participant observation, interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. After describing the fieldwork, the authors examine integrated team structures, which are characterised by a large number of barriers that integrated teams face. Processes surrounding different working practices are explored next. Ways of unifying health care professional practice in integrated teams are suggested using evidence from both the literature and fieldwork. Outcomes that emerged after one year of the new teams' lives are discussed in detail. The difficulty in establishing acceptable outcomes, especially the validity and reliability of outcome measures, is considered. Throughout, the positive and negative aspects of integrated teams emerging from the fieldwork are compared and contrasted with issues in the literature. Finally, recommendations are made to help strengthen integrated teams in the UK.</p>","PeriodicalId":80033,"journal":{"name":"Journal of management in medicine","volume":"16 6","pages":"463-83"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/02689230210450016","citationCount":"20","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating self-managed integrated community teams.\",\"authors\":\"Keith Hurst,&nbsp;Jackie Ford,&nbsp;Cath Gleeson\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/02689230210450016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>After briefly describing self-managed integrated community teams, the authors explore potential and actual methods of evaluating their structures, processes and outcomes. Primary health care staff in three comparable sites were studied using non-participant observation, interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. After describing the fieldwork, the authors examine integrated team structures, which are characterised by a large number of barriers that integrated teams face. Processes surrounding different working practices are explored next. Ways of unifying health care professional practice in integrated teams are suggested using evidence from both the literature and fieldwork. Outcomes that emerged after one year of the new teams' lives are discussed in detail. The difficulty in establishing acceptable outcomes, especially the validity and reliability of outcome measures, is considered. Throughout, the positive and negative aspects of integrated teams emerging from the fieldwork are compared and contrasted with issues in the literature. Finally, recommendations are made to help strengthen integrated teams in the UK.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":80033,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of management in medicine\",\"volume\":\"16 6\",\"pages\":\"463-83\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/02689230210450016\",\"citationCount\":\"20\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of management in medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/02689230210450016\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of management in medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/02689230210450016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

摘要

在简要描述了自我管理的综合社区团队之后,作者探索了评估其结构、过程和结果的潜在和实际方法。采用非参与式观察、访谈、焦点小组和问卷调查对三个可比地点的初级卫生保健工作人员进行了研究。在描述了实地工作之后,作者检查了集成团队结构,其特征是集成团队面临的大量障碍。接下来将探讨围绕不同工作实践的流程。利用文献和实地调查的证据,建议在综合团队中统一卫生保健专业实践的方法。详细讨论了新团队一年后出现的结果。考虑到难以建立可接受的结果,特别是结果测量的有效性和可靠性。在整个过程中,从实地考察中出现的综合团队的积极和消极方面与文献中的问题进行了比较和对比。最后,提出建议,以帮助加强综合团队在英国。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating self-managed integrated community teams.

After briefly describing self-managed integrated community teams, the authors explore potential and actual methods of evaluating their structures, processes and outcomes. Primary health care staff in three comparable sites were studied using non-participant observation, interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. After describing the fieldwork, the authors examine integrated team structures, which are characterised by a large number of barriers that integrated teams face. Processes surrounding different working practices are explored next. Ways of unifying health care professional practice in integrated teams are suggested using evidence from both the literature and fieldwork. Outcomes that emerged after one year of the new teams' lives are discussed in detail. The difficulty in establishing acceptable outcomes, especially the validity and reliability of outcome measures, is considered. Throughout, the positive and negative aspects of integrated teams emerging from the fieldwork are compared and contrasted with issues in the literature. Finally, recommendations are made to help strengthen integrated teams in the UK.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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