Conditions for production of interdisciplinary teamwork outcomes in oncology teams: protocol for a realist evaluation

Implementation Science

Benoît Samson²  Annie Turcotte³  Jean-Louis Denis¹  Danièle Roberge³  Nassera Touati¹  Dominique Tremblay³ 

[1] École Nationale d’Administration Publique, Montréal, QC G1K 9E5, Canada;CSSS Champlain–Charles-Le Moyne, Longueuil, QC J4V 2H1, Canada;Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke-Campus Longueuil, Longueuil, QC J4K 0A8, Canada

关键词: Cancer;    Case study;    Patient outcomes;    Realist evaluation;    Professional practices;    Interdisciplinarity;   

Others  :  800911
DOI  :  10.1186/1748-5908-9-76

 received in 2014-05-01, accepted in 2014-06-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Interdisciplinary teamwork (ITW) is designed to promote the active participation of several disciplines in delivering comprehensive cancer care to patients. ITW provides mechanisms to support continuous communication among care providers, optimize professionals’ participation in clinical decision-making within and across disciplines, and foster care coordination along the cancer trajectory. However, ITW mechanisms are not activated optimally by all teams, resulting in a gap between desired outcomes of ITW and actual outcomes observed. The aim of the present study is to identify the conditions underlying outcome production by ITW in local oncology teams.

Methods

This retrospective multiple case study will draw upon realist evaluation principles to explore associations among context, mechanisms and outcomes (CMO). The cases are nine interdisciplinary cancer teams that participated in a previous study evaluating ITW outcomes. Qualitative data sources will be used to construct a picture of CMO associations in each case. For data collection, reflexive focus groups will be held to capture patients’ and professionals’ perspectives on ITW, using the guiding question, ‘What works, for whom, and under what circumstances?’ Intra-case analysis will be used to trace associations between context, ITW mechanisms, and patient outcomes. Inter-case analysis will be used to compare the different cases’ CMO associations for a better understanding of the phenomenon under study.

Discussion

This multiple case study will use realist evaluation principles to draw lessons about how certain contexts are more or less likely to produce particular outcomes. The results will make it possible to target more specifically the actions required to optimize structures and to activate the best mechanisms to meet the needs of cancer patients. This project could also contribute significantly to the development of improved research methods for conducting realist evaluations of complex healthcare interventions. To our knowledge, this study is the first to use CMO associations to improved empirical and theoretical understanding of interdisciplinary teamwork in oncology, and its results could foster more effective implementation in clinical practice.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Tremblay et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Howell D, Currie S, Mayo S, Jones G, Boyle M, Hack T, Green E, Hoffman L, Simpson J, Collacutt V, McLeod D, Digout C: A Pan-Canadian Clinical Practice Guideline: Assessment of Psychosocial Health Care Needs of the Adult Cancer Patient. Toronto: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer (Cancer Journey Action Group) and the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology; 2009. http://www.capo.ca/Fatigue_Guideline.pdf webcite
• [2]Comité des représentants de la population atteinte de cancer et des proches (REPOP): Besoins des personnes atteintes de cancer et de leurs proches au Québec, Recommandations, Avis. 2005. [http://www.merici.ca/Bibliotheque_pdf/msss_quebec/besoins_pers_cancer.pdf webcite]
• [3]La lutte contre le cancer dans les régions du Québec - Un premier bilan http://msssa4.msss.gouv.qc.ca/fr/document/publication.nsf/fb143c75e0c27b69852566aa0064b01c/a32c2ea1f943a28485256e7b00504064?OpenDocument webcite
• [4]Morrison V, Henderson BJ, Zinovieff F, Davies G, Cartmell R, Hall A, Gollins S: Common, important, and unmet needs of cancer outpatients. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2012, 16:115-123.
• [5]Thorne SE, Bultz BD, Baile WF: Is there a cost to poor communication in cancer care?: a critical review of the literature. Psycho-Oncology 2005, 14:875-884.
• [6]Haward R, Amir Z, Borrill C, Dawson J, Scully J, West M, Sainsbury R: Breast cancer teams: the impact of constitution, new cancer workload, and methods of operation on their effectiveness. Brit J Cancer 2003, 89:15-22.
• [7]Comité consultatif sur le cancer: Programme québécois de lutte contre le cancer. Pour lutter efficacement contre le cancer, formons équipe. 1997. http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/1997/97-729-5.pdf webcite
• [8]Le bilan des réalisations des orientations prioritaires 2007–2012 du Programmequébécois de lutte contre le cancer http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/2011/11-902-16.pdf webcite
• [9]Tremblay D, Roberge D, Cazale L, Touati N, Maunsell E, Latreille J, Lemaire J: Evaluation of the impact of interdisciplinarity in cancer care. BMC Health Serv Res 2011, 11:144.
• [10]Champagne F, Brousselle A, Hartz Z, Contandriopoulos A-P, Denis J-L: L’analyse de l’implantation. In L’évaluation: concepts et méthodes. Edited by Brousselle A, Champagne F, Contandriopoulos A-P, Hartz Z. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 2011:237-273.
• [11]Comité des équipes interdisciplinaires de lutte contre le cancer (CEILCC): Les équipes interdisciplinaires en oncologie. Avis; 2005. [http://www.msss.gouv.qc.ca/sujets/prob_sante/cancer/download.php?f=e899a549fb5483bca704b9f28a7e03ec webcite]
• [12]Direction de la lutte contre le cancer, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec: Rapport d’activité 2008–2009. 2009. http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/2009/09-902-02.pdf webcite
• [13]Partenariat canadien contre le cancer: Stimuler l’innovation dans la prestation des services: Symposium sur l’optimisation des professionnels de la santé contre le cancer. 2010. http://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/sites/default/files/CPAC%20Symposium%20FRE%20Report%20Finalr3.pdf webcite
• [14]Simmonds S, Cold J, Joseph P, Marriott S, Tyrer P: Community mental health team management in severe mental illness: a systematic review. Br J Psychiat 2001, 178:497-502.
• [15]Eccles MP, Hawthorne G, Johntson M, Hunter M, Steen N, Francis J, Hrisos S, Elovainio M, Grimshaw JM: Improving the delivery of care for patients with diabetes through understanding optimised team work and organisation in primary care. Implement Sci 2009, 4:22.
• [16]Schofield RF, Amodeo M: Interdisciplinary teams in health care and human services settings: are they effective? Health Soc Work 1999, 24:210-219.
• [17]Direction de la lutte contre le cancer, Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux du Québec, Gouvernement du Québec: Orientations prioritaires 2007–2012 du Programme québécois de lutte contre le cancer. 2007. [http://publications.msss.gouv.qc.ca/acrobat/f/documentation/2007/07-902-03.pdf webcite]
• [18]Agence d’évaluation des technologies et des modes d’intervention en santé(AETMIS): L’évaluation externe de l’organisation et de la prestation des soins en oncologie. Revue des expériences pertinentes pour le processus d’évaluation et de désignation des établissements et des équipes interdisciplinaires de lutte contre le cancer au Québec, 2010. ETMIS 2010, 6(6):1-152. [http://www.inesss.qc.ca/fileadmin/doc/AETMIS/Rapports/Cancer/ETMIS2010_Vol6_No6.pdf webcite]
• [19]Health Professions Regulatory Advisory Council (HPRAC): Interprofessional Collaboration: A Summary of Key Reference Documents & Selected Highlights from the Literature. Toronto; 2008. http://www.hprac.org/en/projects/resources/hprac-collaboration.LitReviewENFINAL.feb1208.pdf webcite
• [20]Thornhill J, Dault M, Clements D: Ready, set … collaborate? the evidence says “Go,” so what’s slowing adoption of inter-professional collaboration in primary healthcare? Healthc Q 2008, 11:14-16.
• [21]Canadian health services research foundation: Teamwork in healthcare: promoting effective teamwork in healthcare in Canada. Policy synthesis and recommendations. Ottawa; 2006. http://www.cfhi-fcass.ca/Migrated/PDF/teamwork-synthesis-report_e.pdf webcite
• [22]World Health Organization: Framework for Action on Interprofessional Education & Collaborative Practice. 2010. http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2010/WHO_HRH_HPN_10.3_eng.pdf webcite
• [23]Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W: What do we know about health care team effectiveness? a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2006, 63:263-300.
• [24]Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario (RNAO): Healthy Work Environments Best Practice Guidelines, Collaborative Practice AmongNursing Teams. 2006. [http://rnao.ca/sites/rnao-ca/files/Collaborative_Practice_Among_Nursing_Teams.pdf webcite]
• [25]Gagliardi AR, Dobrow MJ, Wright FC: How can we improve cancer care? A review of interprofessional collaboration models and their use in clinical management. Surg Oncol 2011, 20:146-154.
• [26]Canadian Partnership Against Cancer: Sustaining Action Toward a Shared Vision. 2012. [http://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/Sustaining-Action-Toward-A-Shared-Vision_web.pdf webcite]
• [27]Choi BC, Pak AW: Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clin Invest Med 2006, 29:351-364.
• [28]D’Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M, San Martin-Rodriguez L, Beaulieu MD: The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: core concepts and theoretical frameworks. J Interprof Care 2005, 19:116-131.
• [29]Kenaszchuk C, Reeves S, Nicholas D, Zwarenstein M: Validity and reliability of a multiple-group measurement scale for interprofessional collaboration. BMC Health Serv Res 2010, 10:1-15.
• [30]Petty JK, Vetto JT: Beyond doughnuts: tumor board recommendations influence patient care. J Cancer Educ 2002, 17:97-100.
• [31]Gray JR: The tumor conference: an integral component of the oncology program. J Oncol Manag 1997, 6:10-14.
• [32]Castel P, Friedberg E: Institutional change as an interactive process: the modernization of the French cancer centers. Organ Sci 2010, 21:311-330.
• [33]Fennell ML, Prabhu Das I, Clauser S, Petrelli N, Salner A: The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010, 2010:72-80.
• [34]Reeves S, Lewin S, Espin S, Zwarenstein M: Interprofessional teamwork in health and social care. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
• [35]San Martin Rodriguez L: Évaluation des effets de la collaboration interprofessionnelle chez les professionnels et chez les patients dans les unités d’hospitalisation en oncologie et en hématologie. Canada: Université de Montréal; 2007. [Ph.D. thesis]
• [36]McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, McMurray JJ: Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004, 44:810-819.
• [37]Naylor CJ, Griffiths RD, Fernandez RS: Does a multidisciplinary total parenteral nutrition team improve outcomes? a systematic review. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 2004, 28:251-258.
• [38]Whetten DA, Cameron KS: Building effective teams and teamwork. In Developing management skills. Edited by Whetten DA, Cameron KS. Jersey City, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2007:493-535.
• [39]Silas L: From promise to practice: getting healthy work environments in health workplaces. Healthcare Papers 2007, 7:46-51.
• [40]Schmitt MH: Collaboration improves the quality of care: methodological challenges and evidence from US health care research. J Interprof Care 2001, 15:47-66.
• [41]Zwarenstein M, Bryant W: Interventions to promote collaboration between nurses and doctors. Cochrane DB Syst Rev 2000., 2CD000072
• [42]Freeth D: Sustaining interprofessional collaboration. J Interprof Care 2001, 15:37-46.
• [43]Schmitt MH, Farrell MP, Heinemann GD: Conceptual and methodological problems in studying the effects of interdisciplinary geriatric teams. Gerontologist 1988, 28:753-764.
• [44]Halstead LS: Team care in chronic illness: a critical review of the literature of the past 25 years. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1976, 57:507-511.
• [45]Finn R, Currie G, Martin G: Team work in context: institutional mediation in the public-service professional bureaucracy. Organ Stud 2010, 31:1069-1097.
• [46]Baldwin LM, Taplin SH, Friedman H, Moe R: Access to multidisciplinary care: is it linked to the use of breast-conserving surgery with radiation for early-stage breast carcinoma? Cancer 2004, 100:701-709.
• [47]Mulhall A, Kelly D, Pearce S: A qualitative evaluation of an adolescent cancer unit. Eur J Cancer Care 2004, 13:16-22.
• [48]Medical Research Council: Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. London; 2008. [http://www.mrc.ac.uk/documents/pdf/complex-interventions-guidance/ webcite]
• [49]Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A, Kinmonth A, Sandercock P, Spiegelhalter D, Tyrer P: Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. Brit Med J 2000, 321:694-696.
• [50]Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, Emery J, Farmer A, Griffiths F, Guthrie B, Lester H, Wilson P, Kinmonth AL: Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. Brit Med J 2007, 334:455-459.
• [51]Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Finch T, Kennedy A, Mair F, O’Donnell C, Ong BN, Rapley T, Rogers A, May C: Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med 2010, 8:63.
• [52]Pawson R, Tilley N: Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications; 1997.
• [53]Astbury B, Leeuw FL: Unpacking black boxes: mecanisms and theory building in evaluation. Am J Eval 2010, 31:363-381.
• [54]Pawson R, Tilley N: Realist Evaluation. 2004. http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf webcite
• [55]Kazi M: Realist evaluation in practice: health and social work. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.
• [56]McCormack B, Kitson A, Harvey G, Rycroft-Malone J, Titchen A, Seers K: Getting evidence into practice: the meaning of context. J Adv Nurs 2002, 38:94-104.
• [57]Borrill C, Carletta JC, Carter A, Dawson JF, Garrod S, Rees A, Richards A, Shapiro D, West M: Team Working and Effectiveness in Health Care: Findings from the Health Care Team Effectiveness Project. 2001. [http://homepages.inf.ed.ac.uk/jeanc/DOH-glossy-brochure.pdf webcite]
• [58]Heinemann GD, Zeiss AM: Team performance in health care: assessment and development. New York: Springer; 2002.
• [59]Willard C, Luker K: Working with the team: strategies employed by hospital cancer nurse specialists to implement their role. J Clin Nurs 2007, 16:716-724.
• [60]Maslin-Prothero SE, Bennion EA: Integrated team working: a literature review. Int J Integr Care 2010, 10:e043.
• [61]Xyrichis A, Lowton K: What fosters or prevents interprofessional teamworking in primary and community care? a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud 2008, 45:140-153.
• [62]Lemieux-Charles L: Understanding the conditions that lead to effective health services delivery networks. Healthc Pap 2006, 7:40-45.
• [63]Akrich M, Callon M, Latour B: A quoi tient le succès des innovations. 2: L’art de choisir les bons porte-parole. Gérer et Comprendre, Annales des Mines 1988, 12:14-29.
• [64]San Martin Rodriguez L, Beaulieu M, D’Amour D, Ferrada M: The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. J Interprof Care 2005, 19:132-147.
• [65]Begun JW, White KR, Mosser G: Interprofessional care teams: the role of the healthcare administrator. J Interprof Care 2011, 25:119-123.
• [66]Stewart GL: A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team performance. J Manage 2006, 32:29-55.
• [67]Campion MA, Medsker GJ, Higgs AC: Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: implications for designing effective work groups. Pers Psychol 1993, 46:823-850.
• [68]Mead N, Bower P: Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Soc Sci Med 2000, 51:1087-1110.
• [69]D’Amour D, Tremblay D, Bernier L: Les pratiques professionnelles de réseaux: l’intégration au delà des structures. In Le système sociosanitaire au Québec: gouverne, régulation et participation. Boucherville: Gaétan Morin; 2006:273-287.
• [70]Powell AE, Davies HTO: The struggle to improve patient care in the face of professional boundaries. Soc Sci Med 2012, 75:807-814.
• [71]Tremblay D: La traduction d’une innovation organisationnelle dans les pratiques professionnelles de reseau: l’infirmiere pivot en oncologie. Canada: Universite de Montreal; 2008. [Ph.D. thesis]
• [72]Levesque J-F, Pineault R, Simard B, Hamel M, Roberge D, Ouellet D, Haggerty J: Questionnaire populationnel, L’accessibilité et la continuité des services de santé : une étude sur la première ligne au Québec. 2006. [http://www.greas.ca/evolution/pdf/questionnairepopfr.pdf webcite]
• [73]Conroy T, Mercier M, Bonneterre J, Luporsi E, Lefebvre JL, Lapeyre M, Puyraveau M, Schraub S: French version of FACT-G: validation and comparison with other cancer-specific instruments. Eur J Cancer 2004, 40:2243-2252.
• [74]Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Whitfield K: The health education impact questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 66:192-201.
• [75]Gerring J: Case study research: principles and practices. New York: Cambridge University Press; 2007.
• [76]Fitzgerald L, Dopson S: Comparative case study designs: their utility and development in organizational research. In The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. Edited by Buchanan DA, Bryman A. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications; 2009:465-483.
• [77]Gerring J: What is a case study and what is it good for? Am Polit Sci Rev 2004, 98:341-354.
• [78]Greenhalgh T, Humphrey C, Hughes J, Macfarlane F, Butler C, Pawson R: How do you modernize a health service? a realist evaluation of whole-scale transformation in London. Milbank Q 2009, 87:391-416.
• [79]Rycroft-Malone J, Fontenla M, Bick D, Seers K: A realistic evaluation: the case of protocol-based care. Implement Sci 2010, 5:38.
• [80]Redfern S, Christian S, Norman I: Evaluating change in health care practice: lessons from three studies. J Eval Clin Pract 2003, 9:239-249.
• [81]Kennedy A, Rogers A, Gately C: Assessing the introduction of the expert patients programme into the NHS: a realistic evaluation of recruitment to a national lay-led self-care initiative. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2005, 6:137-148.
• [82]Yin RK: Case study research: design and methods. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2009.
• [83]Rohlfing I: What you see and what you get: pitfalls and principles of nested analysis in comparative research. Comp Polit Stud 2008, 41:1492-1514.
• [84]Eisenhardt KM: Building theories from case study research. Acad Manage Rev 1989, 14:532-550.
• [85]Leclerc C, Bourassa B, Picard F, Courcy F: Du groupe focalisé à la recherche collaborative: avantages, défis et stratégies. Recherche qualitative 2010, 29:145-167.
• [86]Morgan DL: Focus groups as qualitative research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1997.
• [87]Patton MQ: Qualitative research & evaluation methods. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2003.
• [88]Kitzinger J, Marková I, Kalampalikis N: Qu’est-ce que les focus groups? B Psychol 2004, 57:237-243.
• [89]Vinck D: Les objets intermédiaires dans les réseaux de coopération scientifique – contribution à la prise en compte des objets dans les dynamiques sociales. Rev Fr Sociol 1999, 40:385-414.
• [90]Schön DA: The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books; 1983.
• [91]Finch J: The vignette technique in survey research. Sociology 1987, 21:105-114.
• [92]Cazale L, Tremblay D, Roberge D, Touati N, Denis J-L, Pineault R: Développement et application d’une vignette clinique pour apprécier la qualité des soins d’équipes interdisciplinaires en oncologie. Rev Epidemiol Sante 2006, 54:407-420.
• [93]Van der Maren J-M: La maquette d’un entretien: son importance dans le bon déroulement de l’entretien et dans la collecte de données de qualité. Recherches qualitatives 2010, 29:129-139.
• [94]Lewis RB, Maas SM: QDA miner 2.0: mixed-model qualitative data analysis software. Field Methods 2007, 19:87-108.
• [95]Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J: Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2014.
• [96]Saldana J: The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2009.
• [97]Ely M, Anzul M, Friedman T, Gardner D, McCormack-Steinmet A: Doing qualitative research: circles within circles. New York: Routledge; 1991.
• [98]Van der Maren JM: Méthodes de recherche pour l’éducation. 2nd edition. Montréal: Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 1996.
• [99]Campbell S: Comparative case study. In Encyclopedia of case study research. Edited by Mills AJ, Durepos G, Wiebe E. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2010:174-175.
• [100]Whittemore R, Chase SK, Mandle CL: Validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res 2001, 11:522-537.
• [101]Apostolidis T: Representations sociales et triangulation: une application en psychologie sociale de la sante. Psic: Teor e Pesq 2006, 22:211-226.
• [102]Morgan DL: Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Method Res 2007, 1:48-76.
• [103]Wolf F: Enlightened eclecticism or hazardous hotchpotch? mixed methods and triangulation: strategies in comparative public policy research. J Mixed Method Res 2010, 4:144-167.
• [104]Cook TD, Campbell DT: Quasi-experimentation: design and analysis issues for field settings. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company; 1979.