Interdisciplinary team working in the Irish primary healthcare system: Analysis of 'invisible' bottom up innovations using Normalisation Process Theory.

Interdisciplinary team working in primary care is a key policy goal across healthcare jurisdictions. The National Primary Care Strategy (2001) in Ireland is a top down policy for primary healthcare reform, which prioritised the development and implementation of interdisciplinary Primary Care Teams. The number of Primary Care Teams and features of their clinical meetings have been the key metric in Ireland for appraising progress with the implementation of the strategy. However, these have been challenging to organise in practice. The aim of this paper is to analyse empirical evidence of other forms of interdisciplinary working in Irish primary care, using Normalisation Process Theory. Drawing on data from an on-line survey (71 GPs and 498 other healthcare professionals), and an interview study (37 participants; 8 GPs, 7 practice managers/admin support and 22 health care professionals) in three of the four Health Service Executive (HSE) regions in Ireland, we analyse the nature of these other forms of interdisciplinary working and describe innovations for service delivery that have been developed 'from the ground up' as a result. We examine levers and barriers to the implementation of these bottom up innovations. The levers are that these innovations make sense to professionals, are based on local needs and focus on preventive patient-centred care. They are driven forward by small groups of professionals from different backgrounds with complementary skills. The evaluations show positive impacts of the innovative services for patients, however, many have ceased to operate due to negative effects of the recent economic recession on the Irish healthcare system. These flexible and localised innovations were shaped in part by the reforms set out in the 2001 Primary Care Strategy but also represent unintended effects of that policy because they are the result of bottom up interdisciplinary working that occurs alongside, or instead of, Primary Care Team clinical meetings. Furthermore, as they not captured by existing metrics, the interdisciplinary work and resultant services have been 'invisible' to senior management and policy makers. If appropriately acknowledged and supported, they can shape primary care in the future.

Correction: Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: An integrative review.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177026.].

Assessing the facilitators and barriers of interdisciplinary team working in primary care using normalisation process theory: An integrative review.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary team working is of paramount importance in the reform of primary care in order to provide cost-effective and comprehensive care. However, international research shows that it is not routine practice in many healthcare jurisdictions. It is imperative to understand levers and barriers to the implementation process. This review examines interdisciplinary team working in practice, in primary care, from the perspective of service providers and analyses 1 barriers and facilitators to implementation of interdisciplinary teams in primary care and 2 the main research gaps. METHODS AND FINDINGS: An integrative review following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Following a search of 10 international databases, 8,827 titles were screened for relevance and 49 met the criteria. Quality of evidence was appraised using predetermined criteria. Data were analysed following the principles of framework analysis using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT), which has four constructs: sense making, enrolment, enactment, and appraisal. The literature is dominated by a focus on interdisciplinary working between physicians and nurses. There is a dearth of evidence about all NPT constructs apart from enactment. Physicians play a key role in encouraging the enrolment of others in primary care team working and in enabling effective divisions of labour in the team. The experience of interdisciplinary working emerged as a lever for its implementation, particularly where communication and respect were strong between professionals. CONCLUSION: A key lever for interdisciplinary team working in primary care is to get professionals working together and to learn from each other in practice. However, the evidence base is limited as it does not reflect the experiences of all primary care professionals and it is primarily about the enactment of team working. We need to know much more about the experiences of the full network of primary care professionals regarding all aspects of implementation work. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO 2015: CRD42015019362.

Participatory methods for research prioritization in primary care: an analysis of the World Café approach in Ireland and the USA.

Background: There are increasing imperatives for patients and members of the public to engage as partners in identifying health research priorities. The use of participatory methods to engage stakeholders in health care in research prioritization is not commonly reported. Objective: This article analyses the use of World Cafés as a participatory method for research prioritization with marginalized communities in Ireland and the USA. Methods: The principles of purposeful and snowball sampling were followed in both settings and a diverse range of community and health care stakeholders participated (n = 63 Ireland and n = 55 USA). The principles for a classic World Café were employed but there were novel features in each setting as well. Stewart et al.'s (Patients' and clinicians' research priorities. Health Expect 2011; 14: 439-48, conceptual framework for patient engagement was adapted and used to comparatively analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the World Cafés, focusing on agenda setting, engagement with research processes, interactional features and outputs. Results: Design principles for World Cafés were found to align with high-quality patient engagement for research prioritization in both settings. They served to facilitate meaningful collaboration among stakeholder groups in research prioritization (research agenda setting) and explored research priorities (engagement with research). The café ambience, emphasis on hospitality and self-facilitation created an environment for dialogues within and across participating groups (interactional features). There was a commitment to follow-up actions with reference to possible subsequent research (outputs). Conclusions: The World Café is a valuable, participatory, flexible method that can be used with community and health care stakeholders for research prioritization with marginalized communities.