Implications of interprofessional primary care team characteristics for health services and patient health outcomes: A systematic review with narrative synthesis.

Interprofessional primary care (IPPC) teams are promoted as an alternative to single profession physician practices in primary care with focus on preventive care and chronic disease management. Characteristics of teams can have an impact on their performance. We synthesized quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods evidence addressing the design of IPPC teams. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PAIS using search terms focused on IPPC teams. Studies were included if they discussed the influence of team structure, organization, financial arrangements, or policies and procedures, or either health care processes or outputs, health outcomes, or costs, and were conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom or New Zealand between 2003 and 2016. We screened 11,707 titles, 5366 abstracts, and selected 77 full text articles (38 qualitative, 31 quantitative and 8 mixed-methods). Literature focused on the implications of team characteristics on team processes, such as teamwork, collaboration, or satisfaction of patients or providers. Despite heterogeneity of contexts, some trends are observable: shared space, common vision and goals, clear definitions of roles, and leadership as important to good teamwork. The impacts of these on health care outputs or patient health are not clear. To move the state of knowledge beyond perception of what works well for IPPC teams, researchers should focus on quantitative causal inference about the linkages between team characteristics and patient health.

Funding and remuneration of interdisciplinary primary care teams in Canada: a conceptual framework and application.

BACKGROUND: Reliance on interdisciplinary teams in the delivery of primary care is on the rise. Funding bodies strive to design financial environments that support collaboration between providers. At present, the design of financial arrangements has been fragmented and not based on evidence. The root of the problem is a lack of systematic evidence demonstrating the superiority of any particular financial arrangement, or a solid understanding of options. In this study we develop a framework for the conceptualization and analysis of financial arrangements in interdisciplinary primary care teams. METHODS: We use qualitative data from three sources: (i) interviews with 19 primary care decision makers representing 215 clinics in three Canadian provinces, (ii) a research roundtable with 14 primary care decision makers and/or researchers, and (iii) policy documents. Transcripts from interviews and the roundtable were coded thematically and a framework synthesis approach was applied. RESULTS: Our conceptual framework differentiates between team level funding and provider level remuneration, and characterizes the interplay and consonance between them. Particularly the notions of hierarchy, segregation, and dependence of provider incomes, and the link between funding and team activities are introduced as new clarifying concepts, and their implications explored. The framework is applied to the analysis of collaboration incentives, which appear strongest when provider incomes are interdependent, funding is linked to the team as a whole, and accountability does not have multiple lines. Emergent implementation issues discussed by respondents include: (i) centrality of budget negotiations; (ii) approaches to patient rostering; (iii) unclear funding sources for space and equipment; and (iv) challenges with community engagement. The creation of patient rosters is perceived as a surprisingly contentious issue, and the challenges of funding for space and equipment remain unresolved. CONCLUSIONS: The development and application of a conceptual framework is an important step to the systematic study of the best performing financial models in the context of interdisciplinary primary care. The identification of optimal financial arrangements must be contextualized in terms of feasibility and the implementation environment. In general, financial hierarchy, both overt and covert, is considered a barrier to collaboration.

How best to structure interdisciplinary primary care teams: the study protocol for a systematic review with narrative framework synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Western publicly funded health care systems increasingly rely on interdisciplinary teams to support primary care delivery and management of chronic conditions. This knowledge synthesis focuses on what is known in the academic and grey literature about optimal structural characteristics of teams. Its goal is to assess which factors contribute to the effective functioning of interdisciplinary primary care teams and improved health system outcomes, with specific focus on (i) team structure contribution to team process, (ii) team process contribution to primary care goals, and (iii) team structure contribution to primary care goals. METHODS AND DESIGN: The systematic search of academic literature focuses on four chronic conditions and co-morbidities. Within this scope, qualitative and quantitative studies that assess the effects of team characteristics (funding, governance, organization) on care process and patient outcomes will be searched. Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PAIS, Web of Science) will be searched systematically. Online web-based searches will be supported by the Grey Matters Tool. Studies will be included, if they report on interdisciplinary primary care in publicly funded Western health systems, and address the relationships between team structure, process, and/or patient outcomes. Studies will be selected in a three-stage screening process (title/abstract/full text) by two independent reviewers in each stage. Study quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. An a priori framework will be applied to data extraction, and a narrative framework approach is used for the synthesis. DISCUSSION: Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, an electronic decision support tool will be developed for decision makers. It will be searchable along two axes of inquiry: (i) what primary care goals are supported by specific team characteristics and (ii) how should teams be structured to support specific primary care goals? The results of this evidence review will contribute directly to the design of interdisciplinary primary care teams. The optimized design will support the goals of primary care, contributing to the improved health of populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016041884.