↓ Skip to main content

Pulling together and pulling apart: influences of convergence and divergence on distributed healthcare teams

Overview of attention for article published in Advances in Health Sciences Education, January 2017
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 (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
133 Mendeley
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
Pulling together and pulling apart: influences of convergence and divergence on distributed healthcare teams
Published in
Advances in Health Sciences Education, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10459-016-9741-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

L. Lingard, C. Sue-Chue-Lam, G. R. Tait, J. Bates, J. Shadd, V. Schulz, For the Heart Failure/Palliative Care Teamwork Research Group

Abstract

Effective healthcare requires both competent individuals and competent teams. With this recognition, health professions education is grappling with how to factor team competence into training and assessment strategies. These efforts are impeded, however, by the absence of a sophisticated understanding of the the relationship between competent individuals and competent teams . Using data from a constructivist grounded theory study of team-based healthcare for patients with advanced heart failure, this paper explores the relationship between individual team members' perceived goals, understandings, values and routines and the collective competence of the team. Individual interviews with index patients and their healthcare team members formed Team Sampling Units (TSUs). Thirty-seven TSUs consisting of 183 interviews were iteratively analysed for patterns of convergence and divergence in an inductive process informed by complex adaptive systems theory. Convergence and divergence were identifiable on all teams, regularly co-occurred on the same team, and involved recurring themes. Convergence and divergence had nonlinear relationships to the team's collective functioning. Convergence could foster either shared action or collective paralysis; divergence could foster problematic incoherence or productive disruption. These findings advance our understanding of the complex relationship between the individual and the collective on a healthcare team, and they challenge conventional narratives of healthcare teamwork which derive largely from acute care settings and emphasize the importance of common goals and shared mental models. Complex adaptive systems theory helps us to understand the implications of these insights for healthcare teams' delivery of care for the complex, chronically ill.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 132 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 20%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Researcher 9 7%
Student > Bachelor 9 7%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 41 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 14%
Social Sciences 14 11%
Psychology 10 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 47 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,140,379
of 25,859,234 outputs
Outputs from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#64
of 951 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,506
of 425,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Advances in Health Sciences Education
#3
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,859,234 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 951 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 425,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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.