↓ Skip to main content

Teamwork in primary palliative care: general practitioners’ and specialised oncology nurses’ complementary competencies

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
173 Mendeley
Title
Teamwork in primary palliative care: general practitioners’ and specialised oncology nurses’ complementary competencies
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-2955-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

May-Lill Johansen, Bente Ervik

Abstract

Generalists such as general practitioners and district nurses have been the main actors in community palliative care in Norway. Specialised oncology nurses with postgraduate palliative training are increasingly becoming involved. There is little research on their contribution. This study explores how general practitioners (GPs) and oncology nurses (ONs) experience their collaboration in primary palliative care. A qualitative focus group and interview study in rural Northern Norway, involving 52 health professionals. Five uni-professional focus group discussions were followed by five interprofessional discussions and six individual interviews. Transcripts were analysed thematically. The ideal cooperation between GPs and ONs was as a "meeting of experts" with complementary competencies. GPs drew on their generalist backgrounds, including their often long-term relationship with and knowledge of the patient. The ONs contributed longitudinal clinical observations and used their specialised knowledge to make treatment suggestions. While ONs were often experienced and many had developed a form of pattern recognition, they needed GPs' competencies for complex clinical judgements. However, ONs sometimes lacked timely advice from GPs, and could feel left alone with sick patients. To avoid this, some ONs bypassed GPs and contacted palliative specialists directly. While traditional professional hierarchies were not a barrier, we found that organization, funding and remuneration were significant barriers to cooperation. GPs often did not have time to meet with ONs to discuss shared patients. We also found that ONs and GPs had different strategies for learning. While ONs belonged to a networking nursing collective aiming for continuous quality improvement, GPs learned mostly from their individual experience of caring for patients. The complementary competences and autonomous roles of a specialised nurse and a general practitioner represented a good match for primary palliative care. When planning high-quality teamwork in primary care, organizational barriers to cooperation and different cultures for learning need consideration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 173 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 173 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 19%
Unspecified 12 7%
Student > Bachelor 11 6%
Student > Postgraduate 8 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 33 19%
Unknown 68 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 24%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 12%
Unspecified 12 7%
Social Sciences 7 4%
Computer Science 4 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 74 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2018.
All research outputs
#2,301,159
of 24,855,923 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#905
of 8,409 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,944
of 337,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#36
of 221 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,855,923 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,409 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 337,958 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 221 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.