Publication Information: Umeå universitet, Institutionen för omvårdnad
Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, K32 Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institutet, Södersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden
Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, K32 Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; FHNW School of Applied Psychology, FHNW University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland, Olten, Switzerland
Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Statistics Unit, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, K32 Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract: Background: In northern rural Sweden, telemedicine is used to improve access to healthcare and to provide patient-centered care. In emergency care during on-call hours, video-conference systems are used to connect the physicians to the rest of the team – creating ‘distributed teams’. Patient participation is a core competency for healthcare professionals. Knowledge about how distributed teamwork affects patient participation is missing. The aim was to investigate if and how teamwork affecting patient participation, as well as clinicians’ perceptions regarding shared decision-making differ between co-located and distributed emergency teams. Methods: In an observational study with a randomized cross-over design, healthcare professionals (n = 51) participated in authentic teams (n = 17) in two scripted simulated emergency scenarios with a standardized patient: one as a co-located team and the other as a distributed team. Team performances were filmed and observed by independent raters using the PIC-ET tool to rate patient participation behavior. The participants individually filled out the Dyadic OPTION questionnaire after the respective scenarios to measure perceptions of shared decision-making. Scores in both instruments were translated to percentage of a maximum score. The observational data between the two settings were compared using linear mixed-effects regression models and the self-reported questionnaire data were compared using one-way ANOVA. Neither the participants nor the observers were blinded to the allocations. Results: A significant difference in observer rated overall patient participation behavior was found, mean 51.1 (± 11.5) % for the co-located teams vs 44.7 (± 8.6) % for the distributed teams (p = 0.02). In the PIC-ET tool category ‘Sharing power’, the scores decreased from 14.4 (± 12.4) % in the co-located teams to 2 (± 4.4) % in the distributed teams (p = 0.001). Co-located teams scored in mean 60.5% (± 14.4) when self-assessing shared decision-making, vs 55.8% (± 15.1) in the distributed ...
Processing Request
No Comments.