Team interventions in acute hospital contexts: protocol for the evaluation of an initial programme theory using realist methods
Open accessAbstract
Introduction : Literature on multi-disciplinary healthcare team interventions to improve quality and safety of care in acute hospital contexts tends to focus on evaluating the success of the intervention by assessing patient outcomes. In contrast, there is little focus on the team who delivered the intervention, how the team worked to deliver the intervention or the context in which it was delivered. In practice, there is therefore a poor understanding of why some interventions work and are sustained and why others fail. There is little emphasis in the literature on how the team delivering the intervention might impact success or failure. Given that team is the vehicle through which these interventions are introduced, it is important to understand interventions from their perspectives. This research seeks to deepen understanding of enablers and barriers for effective team interventions. Using two case studies, we will evaluate previously developed initial programme theories to understand, what worked for whom, in what conditions, why, to what extent and how? Methods and analysis : A realist evaluation approach will be employed to test the previously formed set of initial programme theories. Two multi-disciplinary acute hospital team interventions in two different geographical and organisational contexts will be identified. In case study 1, a theory based approach to interviewing will be used. In case study 2, interview transcripts obtained using a semi- structured approach for primary research purposes will undergo secondary analysis. This will enable a more sensitive look at patterns and variations in patterns of multi-disciplinary team interventions. Researchers will first iteratively interrogate each respective dataset to identify the characteristics or resources present within the specific context that influenced how the team intervention worked to produce particular outcomes. Data will then be synthesised across contexts in order to produce middle range theories and thereby more generalisable insights.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Buljac-Samardzic, M., Doekhie, K. D., & van Wijngaarden, J. D. H. (2020) · Human Resources for Health · doi:10.1186/s12960-019-0411-3 · Cited by 515 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Cunningham, U., De Brún, A., Willgerodt, M., Blakeney, E., & McAuliffe, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- HRB Open Research
- Publisher
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Published
- 2021-03-29
- Volume
- 4
- Pages
- 32
- ISSN
- 2515-4826 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9051586
- OpenAlex
- W3147013993
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- HRB Open Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (5K12HL137940-02)
- Health Research Board (RL-2015-1588)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- Health Resources and Services Administration (UD7HP26909)
- Mater Misericordiae University Hospital
- Health Service Executive
- Ireland East Hospital Group
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
- Keywords
- multidisciplinary healthcare teams, team-based intervention, acute hospital care, program theory, barriers and facilitators, intervention sustainability, healthcare quality and safety, middle-range theory, realist evaluation
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