Cited by 134Interprofessional Education and CollaborationPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHealthcare Quality and Management

Team-Based Care and Patient Satisfaction in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

Open access
Will, Kristen K, Johnson, Melissa L, Lamb, Gerri·2019·Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews

Abstract

PURPOSE: Limited research examining the relationship between team-based models of care and patient satisfaction in the hospital setting is available. The purpose of this literature review was to explore this relationship as well as the relationships between team composition, team-based interventions, patient satisfaction, and other outcomes of care when measured as part of the study. METHODS: A systematic appraisal of research studies published through February 2017 was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, Ovid, gray literature and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were 1) experimental (randomized control trials), quasi-experimental, or non-experimental (cross-sectional) study design; 2) team-based care interventions; 3) hospital setting; 4) patient satisfaction measured as an outcome; and 5) published in English. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 15,247 citations. In total, 142 articles were retrieved for full-text screening; 21 studies met inclusion criteria. Overall, 57% of the studies identified a statistically significant improvement in patient satisfaction associated with team-based care. Team-based care interventions ranged from single team activities such as multidisciplinary rounds to comprehensive team-based models of care. Patient satisfaction scores were greater with teams that had more than two professions and more comprehensive team-based models. About one-quarter of studies that measured patient satisfaction and at least one additional outcome demonstrated improvement in both. CONCLUSIONS: Team-based care may positively affect patient satisfaction. Team composition and type of team intervention appears to influence the strength of the relationship. Improvements in satisfaction are not consistently accompanied by improvements in other outcomes.

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 · 10.17294/2330-0698.1695

Cites

49 of 49 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Patients' motivation and treatment adherence are correlated with good-quality medical care, using an integrative framework for targeting multiple areas of functioning.

    “This aligns with previous studies concluding that patients’ motivation and treatment adherence are correlated with good-quality medical care, using an integrative framework for targeting multiple areas of functioning [106,107,108].”

    From A Single-Session Process-Based Cognitive-Behavioral Intervention Combined with Multimodal Rehabilitation Treatment for Chronic Pain Associated with Emotional Disorders (2024) · cites this paper as [107]

    The Link to Patient Experience section discusses patient activation, satisfaction, and quality outcomes, while Team Interventions and Patient Satisfaction discusses integrated care teams. Neither section addresses a correlation between patients’ motivation or treatment adherence and care quality, or an integrative framework targeting multiple areas of functioning. Searches for motivation, adherence, and that framework found no supporting passage in our copy; page numbers were unavailable. (LLM, conf=0.73)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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
Will, K. K., Johnson, M. L., & Lamb, G.
Affiliations
Arizona State University (US)
Corresponding author
Will, Kristen K
Venue
Journal of Patient-Centered Research and Reviews
Published
2019-04-29
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
158-171
ISSN
  • 2330-068X (ISSN-L)
  • 2330-0698
OpenAlex
W2942864331
Cited by
134
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of patient-centered research and reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Interprofessional Education and Collaboration
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
team-based care, patient satisfaction, hospital care, team composition, multidisciplinary rounds, interprofessional collaboration, patient-centered care

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