↓ Skip to main content

Difficulties in collaboration: A critical incident study of interprofessional healthcare teamwork

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Interprofessional Care, July 2009
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
184 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
414 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Difficulties in collaboration: A critical incident study of interprofessional healthcare teamwork
Published in
Journal of Interprofessional Care, July 2009
DOI 10.1080/13561820701760600
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Kvarnström

Abstract

The challenge for members of interprofessional teams is to manage the team processes that occur in all teamwork while simultaneously managing their individual professional identities. The aim of this study was to identify and describe difficulties perceived by health professionals in interprofessional teamwork. Utterances on verbal actions and resolutions were also explored to enable a discussion of the implications for interprofessional learning. Individual interviews using a Critical Incident Technique were performed with 18 Swedish professionals working in healthcare teams, and examined with qualitative content analysis. The main findings show difficulties related to the team dynamic that arose when team members acted towards one another as representatives of their professions, difficulties that occurred when the members' various knowledge contributions interacted in the team, and difficulties related to the influence of the surrounding organization. The perceived consequences of the difficulties, beyond individual consequences, were restrictions on the use of collaborative resources to arrive at a holistic view of the patient's problem, and barriers to providing patient care and service in the desired manner. This paper also discusses how experiences of managing difficulties entailed various forms of interprofessional learning situations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 414 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 7 2%
Australia 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 399 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 18%
Student > Bachelor 73 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 32 8%
Researcher 31 7%
Other 86 21%
Unknown 68 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 76 18%
Social Sciences 55 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 30 7%
Psychology 18 4%
Other 59 14%
Unknown 77 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 04 September 2012.
All research outputs
#16,348,277
of 24,078,959 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Interprofessional Care
#904
of 1,179 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,029
of 113,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Interprofessional Care
#123
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,078,959 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,179 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 113,893 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.