Cited by 15Interprofessional Education and CollaborationHealthcare Systems and TechnologyInnovations in Medical Education

Transcending boundaries for collaborative patient care

Open access
Meijer, Loes J., de Groot, Esther, Honing-de Lange, Gerdine, Kearney, Grainne, Schellevis, François G., Damoiseaux, Roger A. M. J.·2021·Medical Teacher

Abstract

Dutch general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists (MSs) create collaborative patient care agreements (CPCAs) to improve intraprofessional collaboration. We set out to identify contradictions between the activity systems of primary and secondary care that could result in expansive learning and new ways of working collaboratively. We analysed nineteen semi-structured interviews using activity theory (AT) as a theoretical framework and using these two activity systems as the units of analysis. There were contradictions within and between the activity systems related, for example, to different understandings of 'care' in generalist and specialist settings. GPs and MSs were able to identify contradictions and learn expansively when they iteratively co-created CPCAs in groups. They found it much harder to tackle contradictions, however, when they disseminated these tools within their respective professional communities, leaving unresolved contradictions and missed opportunities for collaboration. This research shows the educational benefits of taking collective responsibility for improving collaborative patient care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0142159x.2020.1796947

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Meijer, L. J., de Groot, E., Honing-de Lange, G., Kearney, G., Schellevis, F. G., & Damoiseaux, R. A. M. J.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Department of General Practice, Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMCU), Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • Centre for Medical Education, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
  • Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Meijer, Loes J.
Venue
Medical Teacher
Published
2020-08-07
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
27-31
ISSN
  • 0142-159X (ISSN-L)
  • 1466-187X
OpenAlex
W3048358393
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Teacher (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Healthcare Systems and Technology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
general practitioners, specialist physicians, interprofessional collaboration, activity theory, activity systems, contradiction, expansive learning, primary care, secondary care, professional community, co-creation
MeSH terms
Patient Care, Humans, Learning, Medicine, Specialization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review