Ideological dilemmas of healthcare professionals who do not speak up at interprofessional team meetings.

In healthcare settings, speaking up is considered essential for patient safety. Indeed, voice opportunities are widely available mandatory mechanisms for speaking up at the routine interprofessional team meetings of our study site. Yet, healthcare professionals in team meetings often do not go beyond straightforward reporting of test results and biomedical-functional parameters, suggesting that members with psycho-social information related to the patient are not participating fully in team meetings. Post-meeting interviews with some of the team members revealed the moments of silence and the ideological contradictions underlying team discussions. We explored silences and contradictions as argumentative meanings inherent in naturally occurring speech. The identification of opposing meanings tells of ideological dilemmas that may explain why healthcare practitioners do not speak up vigorously. We identified three such dilemmas: the ideology of working in teams versus the ideology of working solo; the ideology of autonomy versus the ideology of paternalism; and the ideology of collectivism versus the ideology of individuality. The dilemmas made visible the dimensions of silence as well as silencing as an imposition of silence from above. We suggest focussing on mapping disciplinary and interpretive differences and their effects amongst team members may motivate voice. Further studies should explore the affective dimensions of silence in interprofessional team meetings.

Understanding decision-making in interprofessional team meetings through interpretative repertoires and discursive devices.

Health practitioners of the geriatrics ward in a teaching hospital participate in interprofessional team meetings to agree on treatment and discharge care plans for their patients suffering from chronic illnesses and co-morbidities and in need of coordinated assessments and care. We turn to the ideas in critical discursive psychology to grow a much-needed research area of examining the language-in-use and its effects in team decision-making. Specifically we explore how healthcare team members use language to perform collaboration or disengagement, creating different subject positionings for themselves and others out of a backcloth of discursive resources and practices. We observed and transcribed 108 case discussions and analyzed them for interpretative repertoires and discursive devices. During the first half of the team discussions, the members of various health professions employed the empiricist and lifeworld interpretative repertoires and the discursive strategy of perspective-taking, articulating these through formulations and questions. We use the notion of argumentative texture to better understand why an administrative structural support like protected turn-taking in team meetings is not enough to promote interprofessional collaboration. We conclude that health practitioners can improve their contributions and subject positionings at team meetings and consequently patient-care, by identifying habitually deployed linguistic resources depicting professional knowledge, and augmenting these with Other-oriented perspectives in their repertoires. By expanding their range of discursive repertoires and recognizing that discursive practices are embedded in the bigger context or argumentative texture of institutional and societal discourses, norms, values, beliefs and practices, interprofessional teams can work to improve communication and knowledge-sharing.

Shared leadership in interprofessional teams: beyond team characteristics to team conditions.

Shared leadership has been shown to enhance processes, effectiveness, and performances in interprofessional teams. While earlier studies suggest the association of internal team environment (ITE) and transactive memory system (TMS) with shared leadership, the relative influence of these team conditions vis-a-vis team characteristics (such as team size, stability, and interprofessional roles) on shared leadership is not well understood. This study aims to examine the comparative influence of team characteristics versus team conditions of ITE and TMS on shared leadership during interprofessional team meetings (IPTMs). We compared interprofessional teams from two departments, namely larger and more diverse teams of Geriatric Medicine versus the smaller and more homogeneous Palliative Medicine. We administered a questionnaire survey to healthcare professionals who attended IPTMs in both departments (N = 133). Our results revealed significantly higher scores in shared leadership, ITE and TMS in Palliative Medicine (p < .05). Using hierarchical regression analysis adjusting for team conditions, department and number of IPTMs attended were not significant in the final model (both p > .05). Instead, TMS (ß= 0.250, p < .01) and ITE (ß= 0.584, p < .01) outperformed team characteristics as conditions that are highly associated with shared leadership, explaining an additional 29.8% and 19.0%, respectively, of model variance. Further analysis revealed a stronger correlation between shared leadership subdomains with TMS in Geriatric Medicine and with ITE in Palliative Medicine. Our results demonstrate how a positive working environment with a high level of shared memory engendered a perception of shared leadership, and how these team conditions can be tapped upon to circumvent differences in team characteristics to facilitate shared leadership. Identifying key conditions that are highly associated with shared leadership is critical for the teaching of dynamic leadership roles to junior clinicians which in turn, can enhance patient care.

The Singapore Liver Cancer Recurrence (SLICER) Score for relapse prediction in patients with surgically resected hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgery is the primary curative option in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Current prognostic models for HCC are developed on datasets of primarily patients with advanced cancer, and may be less relevant to resectable HCC. We developed a postoperative nomogram, the Singapore Liver Cancer Recurrence (SLICER) Score, to predict outcomes of HCC patients who have undergone surgical resection. METHODS: Records for 544 consecutive patients undergoing first-line curative surgery for HCC in one institution from 1992-2007 were reviewed, with 405 local patients selected for analysis. Freedom from relapse (FFR) was the primary outcome measure. An outcome-blinded modeling strategy including clustering, data reduction and transformation was used. We compared the performance of SLICER in estimating FFR with other HCC prognostic models using concordance-indices and likelihood analysis. RESULTS: A nomogram predicting FFR was developed, incorporating non-neoplastic liver cirrhosis, multifocality, preoperative alpha-fetoprotein level, Child-Pugh score, vascular invasion, tumor size, surgical margin and symptoms at presentation. Our nomogram outperformed other HCC prognostic models in predicting FFR by means of log-likelihood ratio statistics with good calibration demonstrated at 3 and 5 years post-resection and a concordance index of 0.69. Using decision curve analysis, SLICER also demonstrated superior net benefit at higher threshold probabilities. CONCLUSION: The SLICER score enables well-calibrated individualized predictions of relapse following curative HCC resection, and may represent a novel tool for biomarker research and individual counseling.