The ambiguity of "we": Perceptions of teaming in dynamic environments and their implications

Revisiting organizational culture in healthcare: Heterogeneity as a resource

Aligning culture to be similar across work units is a common organizational tactic, but its appropriateness for the multidisciplinary context of healthcare is far from certain. Variation in perceptions of culture across large health systems may serve a functional purpose in delivering high quality care and ameliorating job stress; however, past research in healthcare has focused on culture as the average set of values and norms (i.e., cultural content) rather than on (dis)agreement about values and norms among organizational members (i.e., cultural structure). This survey-based study examines both cultural content (averages among individuals) and structure (distances between individuals) in departments of a large U.S. healthcare organization (total sample = 26,314 workers, response rate = 84%). We used linear models to associate four commonly used culture measures with outcome measures (perceived care quality, intent to stay, and manageable job stress). We found substantial heterogeneity in perceptions for multiple culture types. We found curvilinear relationships between heterogeneity for all culture types and outcomes, suggesting that heterogeneity promotes positive outcomes up to a certain point after which the positive effect declines. For research, our findings point to the importance of studying culture in healthcare with greater focus on heterogeneity; for practice, this study highlights how culturally-focused efforts to improve care quality and worker experience in healthcare should be more precise about balancing cultural alignment and heterogeneity.

Joint problem-solving orientation, mutual value recognition, and performance in fluid teamwork environments

Introduction

Joint problem-solving orientation (JPS) has been identified as a factor that promotes performance in fluid teamwork, but research on this factor remains nascent. This study pushes the frontier of understanding about JPS in fluid teamwork environments by applying the concept to within-organization work and exploring its relationships with performance, mutual value recognition (MVR), and expertise variety (EV).

Methods

This is a longitudinal, survey-based field study within a large United States healthcare organization n = 26,319 (2019 response rate = 87%, 2021 response rate = 80%). The analytic sample represents 1,608 departmental units in both years (e.g., intensive care units and emergency departments). We focus on departmental units in distinct locations as the units within which fluid teamwork occurs in the hospital system setting. Within these units, we measure JPS in 2019 and MVR in 2021, and we capture EV by unit using a count of the number of disciplines present. For a performance measure, we draw on the industry-used measurement of perceived care quality and safety. We conduct moderated mediation analysis testing (1) the main effect of JPS on performance, (2) mediation through MVR, and (3) EV as a moderator.

Results

Our results affirm a moderated mediation model wherein JPS enhances performance, both directly and through MVR; EV serves as a moderator in the JPS-MVR relationship. JPS positively influences MVR, irrespective of whether EV is high or low. When JPS is lower, greater EV is associated with lower MVR, whereas amid high JPS, greater EV is associated with higher MVR, as compared to lower EV.

Discussion

Our findings lend further evidence to the value of JPS in fluid teamwork environments for enabling performance, and we document for the first time its relevance for within-organization work. Our results suggest that one vital pathway for JPS to improve performance is through enhancing recognition of the value that others offer, especially in environments where expertise variety is high.

What's going well: a qualitative analysis of positive patient and family feedback in the context of the diagnostic process

OBJECTIVES

Accurate and timely diagnosis relies on close collaboration between patients/families and clinicians. Just as patients have unique insights into diagnostic breakdowns, positive patient feedback may also generate broader perspectives on what constitutes a "good" diagnostic process (DxP).

METHODS

We evaluated patient/family feedback on "what's going well" as part of an online pre-visit survey designed to engage patients/families in the DxP. Patients/families living with chronic conditions with visits in three urban pediatric subspecialty clinics (site 1) and one rural adult primary care clinic (site 2) were invited to complete the survey between December 2020 and March 2022. We adapted the Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT) to conduct a qualitative analysis on a subset of patient/family responses with ≥20 words.

RESULTS

In total, 7,075 surveys were completed before 18,129 visits (39 %) at site 1, and 460 surveys were completed prior to 706 (65 %) visits at site 2. Of all participants, 1,578 volunteered positive feedback, ranging from 1-79 words. Qualitative analysis of 272 comments with ≥20 words described: Relationships (60 %), Clinical Care (36 %), and Environment (4 %). Compared to primary care, subspecialty comments showed the same overall rankings. Within Relationships, patients/families most commonly noted: thorough and competent attention (46 %), clear communication and listening (41 %) and emotional support and human connection (39 %). Within Clinical Care, patients highlighted: timeliness (31 %), effective clinical management (30 %), and coordination of care (25 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients/families valued relationships with clinicians above all else in the DxP, emphasizing the importance of supporting clinicians to nurture effective relationships and relationship-centered care in the DxP.

Advancing research on teams and team effectiveness in implementation science: An application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework

Background

Effective teams are essential to high-quality healthcare. However, teams, team-level constructs, and team effectiveness strategies are poorly delineated in implementation science theories, models, and frameworks (TMFs), hindering our understanding of how teams may influence implementation. The Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework is a flexible and accommodating framework that can facilitate the application of team effectiveness approaches in implementation science.

Main Text

We define teams and provide an overview of key constructs in team effectiveness research. We describe ways to conceptualize different types of teams and team constructs relevant to implementation within the EPIS framework. Three case examples illustrate the application of EPIS to implementation studies involving teams. Within each study, we describe the structure of the team and how team constructs influenced implementation processes and outcomes.

Conclusions

Integrating teams and team constructs into the EPIS framework demonstrates how TMFs can be applied to advance our understanding of teams and implementation. Implementation strategies that target team effectiveness may improve implementation outcomes in team-based settings. Incorporation of teams into implementation TMFs is necessary to facilitate application of team effectiveness research in implementation science.