Impact of information and communication software on multiprofessional team collaboration in outpatient palliative care – a qualitative study on providers’ perspectives
Anastasia Suslow, Chantal Giehl, Jannis Hergesell, Horst Christian Vollmar, Ina Otte
Abstract
The communication processes between different stakeholders in outpatient palliative care face challenges when multiprofessional teams want to keep each other updated on patient information. Meanwhile, the software market offers different tools to connect these teams in real-time to improve communication. In the research project ADAPTIVE (Impact of Digital Technologies in Palliative Care), we investigated how information and communication technology affects collaboration and work in multiprofessional teams and what advantages and disadvantages the use of said software might entail.
We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews between August and November 2020 with general practitioners (n = 8), palliative care nurses (n = 17), and a pharmacist (n = 1). They were conducted in a hybrid format, meaning that both face-to-face interviews and telephone interviews were carried out. Subsequently, we analyzed the interviews following the qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.
Information and communication software has the potential to enable faster communication and delegation of tasks and to simplify communication and task management between providers. Furthermore, it creates the opportunity to decrease unnecessary supervision of duties and responsibilities for physicians in multiprofessional teams. Therefore, it allows facilitating the collaboration between multiprofessional teams that work independently of each other but care for the same patients. All providers have the same knowledge about their patients without time-consuming coordination such as phone calls or search processes in paper documentation. On the other hand, mishandling, poor Internet connection, and unfamiliarity with various features can diminish these benefits.
Even though the use of such software offers many advantages, these advantages only reveal themselves if the software is used as it was intended by the developers. Misuse and unawareness of the individual functions can lead to the full potential not being realized. The software developers frequently offer specialized training, and the multiprofessional teams should utilize that to improve team communication, facilitate tasks, and allow physicians to delegate tasks.
The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS): https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00021603 (Registration number: DRKS00021603; date of first registration: 02/07/2020).
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 15 March 2023.
All research outputs
#2,977,628
of 25,197,939 outputs
Outputs from BMC Palliative Care
#335
of 1,469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,569
of 414,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Palliative Care
#12
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,197,939 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 414,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
