Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 666

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Impact of Relational Coordination on Quality of Care, Postoperative Pain and Functioning, and Length of Stay: A Nine-Hospital Study of Surgical Patients

Gittell, Jody Hoffer, Fairfield, Kathleen M., Bierbaum, Benjamin, Head, William, Jackson, Robert, Kelly, Michael, Laskin, Richard, Lipson, Stephen, Siliski, John, Thornhill, Thomas, Zuckerman, Joseph·2000·Medical Care
DOI 10.1097/00005650-200008000-00005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations face pressures from patients to improve the quality of care and clinical outcomes, as well as pressures from managed care to do so more efficiently. Coordination, the management of task interdependencies, is one way that health care organizations have attempted to meet these conflicting demands. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to introduce the concept of relational coordination and to determine its impact on the quality of care, postoperative pain and functioning, and the length of stay for patients undergoing an elective surgical procedure. Relational coordination comprises frequent, timely, accurate communication, as well as problem-solving, shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect among health care providers. RESEARCH DESIGN: Relational coordination was measured by a cross-sectional questionnaire of health care providers. Quality of care was measured by a cross-sectional postoperative questionnaire of total hip and knee arthroplasty patients. On the same questionnaire, postoperative pain and functioning were measured by the WOMAC osteoarthritis instrument. Length of stay was measured from individual patient hospital records. SUBJECTS: The subjects for this study were 338 care providers and 878 patients who completed questionnaires from 9 hospitals in Boston, MA, New York, NY, and Dallas, TX, between July and December 1997. MEASURES: Quality of care, postoperative pain and functioning, and length of acute hospital stay. RESULTS: Relational coordination varied significantly between sites, ranging from 3.86 to 4.22 (P <0.001). Quality of care was significantly improved by relational coordination (P <0.001) and each of its dimensions. Postoperative pain was significantly reduced by relational coordination (P = 0.041), whereas postoperative functioning was significantly improved by several dimensions of relational coordination, including the frequency of communication (P = 0.044), the strength of shared goals (P = 0.035), and the degree of mutual respect (P = 0.030) among care providers. Length of stay was significantly shortened (53.77%, P <0.001) by relational coordination and each of its dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Relational coordination across health care providers is associated with improved quality of care, reduced postoperative pain, and decreased lengths of hospital stay for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty. These findings support the design of formal practices to strengthen communication and relationships among key caregivers on surgical units.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/00005650-200008000-00005

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Iansiti, 1996, Ind Corporate Change, 557-, 605
  2. Gittell, 2000, California Manage Rev, 42, 1, 10.2307/41166044 · DOI
  3. Fargason, 1992, QRB Qual Rev Bull, 18, 157, 10.1016/S0097-5990(16)30526-7 · DOI
  4. Argote, 1982, Administrative Sci Q, 27, 420, 10.2307/2392320 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Cleves, 1996, Health Serv Res, 31, 39
  6. Gittell, 2000, Int J Hum Res Manage, 11, 517, 10.1080/095851900339747 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Van de Ven, 1976, Acad Manage Rev, 1, 64, 10.2307/257360 · DOI
  8. Adler, 1995, Organ Sci, 6, 147, 10.1287/orsc.6.2.147 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Cleary, 1991, Health Aff, 10, 254, 10.1377/hlthaff.10.4.254 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Bellamy, 1988, J Rheumatol, 15, 1833
  11. Bellamy, 1988, J Orthop Rheumatol, 1, 95
  12. Katz, 1996, Med Care, 34, 73, 10.1097/00005650-199601000-00006 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Katz, 1992, Med Care, 30, 917, 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Ware, 1995, Med Care, 33, AS264, 10.1097/00005650-199501001-00005 · DOI
  15. Knaus, 1986, Ann Intern Med, 104, 410, 10.7326/0003-4819-104-3-410 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Shortell, 1994, Med Care, 32, 508, 10.1097/00005650-199405000-00009 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Baggs, 1992, Heart Lung, 21, 18
  18. Pronovost, 1999, JAMA, 281, 1310, 10.1001/jama.281.14.1310 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Young, 1997, Health Care Manage Rev, 22, 72, 10.1097/00004010-199710000-00010 · DOI
  20. Young, 1998, Health Serv Rev, 33, 1211
  21. Kenagy, 1999, JAMA, 281, 661, 10.1001/jama.281.7.661 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Mancuso, 1995, Med Care, 33, AS77

Cited by

See all 666

Metadata

Authors
Gittell, J. H., Fairfield, K. M., Bierbaum, B., Head, W., Jackson, R., Kelly, M., Laskin, R., Lipson, S., Siliski, J., Thornhill, T., & Zuckerman, J.
Venue
Medical Care
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2000-08
Volume
38
Issue
8
Pages
807-819
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1097/00005650-200008000-00005
OpenAlex
W2253372780
Cited by
666
References
5
FWCI
20.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.