Team climate and patients' perception of primary healthcare attributes in Brazil: a cross-sectional study.

Team climate and attributes of primary healthcare (PHC) are key elements for collaborative practice. Few researchers have explored the relationship between team climate and patients' perceptions of PHC. This study aimed to assess the association between team climate and patients' perceptions of primary healthcare attributes. A quantitative approach was adopted. In Stage 1, Team climate was assessed using Team Climate Inventory in 118 Family Health Strategy (FHS) teams at a PHC setting. In Stage 2, Patients' perceptions of PHC attributes were assessed using the Primary Care Assessment Tool (PCATool) in a sample of 844 patients enrolled in teams studied in Stage 1. Cluster analysis was used to identify team climate groups. The analysis used multilevel linear regression models. Patients assigned to teams with the highest team climate scores had the highest PHC attributes scores. Patients who reported affiliation at the team level had the highest PCATool scores overall. They also scored higher on the attributes of comprehensiveness and coordinated care compared to patients with affiliation to the health unit. In conclusion, patients under the care of FHS teams exhibiting a more favorable team climate had more positive patient perceptions of PHC attributes.

Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being.

BACKGROUND: Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.

Patient involvement in the implementation of infection prevention and control guidelines and associated interventions: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To explore patient involvement in the implementation of infection prevention and control (IPC) guidelines and associated interventions. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: A methodological framework was followed to identify recent publications on patient involvement in the implementation of IPC guidelines and interventions. Initially, relevant databases were searched to identify pertinent publications (published 2013-2018). Reflecting the scarcity of included studies from these databases, a bidirectional citation chasing approach was used as a second search step. The reference list and citations of all identified papers from databases were searched to generate a full list of relevant references. A grey literature search of Google Scholar was also conducted. RESULTS: From an identified 2078 papers, 14 papers were included in this review. Our findings provide insights into the need for a fundamental change to IPC, from being solely the healthcare professionals (HCPs) responsibility to one that involves a collaborative relationship between HCPs and patients. This change should be underpinned by a clear understanding of patient roles, potential levels of patient involvement in IPC and strategies to overcome barriers to patient involvement focusing on the professional-patient relationship (eg, patient encouragement through multimodal educational strategies and efforts to disperse professional's power). CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence regarding the best strategies to promote patient involvement in the implementation of IPC interventions and guidelines. The findings of this review endorse the need for targeted strategies to overcome the lack of role clarity of patients in IPC and the power imbalances between patients and HCPs.