Health care is increasingly provided by teams of health professionals rather than by individual doctors. For decision makers, it is imperative to identify the critical elements for effective teams to transform health care workplaces into effective team-based environments. The authors reviewed the research literature published between 1990 and February 2008. The available research indicated that teams with enhanced clinical expertise improved professional performance and had mixed effects on patient outcomes. Teams with improved coordination had some positive effects on patient outcomes and limited effects on costs and resource utilization. The combination of enhanced expertise and coordination only showed some limited effect on patient outcomes. The authors conclude that enhancement of the clinical expertise is a potentially effective component of improving the impact of patient care teams. The added value of coordination functions remained unclear. Overall, current studies provide little insight into the underlying mechanisms of teamwork.

The aim of this systematic review was (a) to synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of detection, mitigation, and actions to reduce risks in hospitals and (b) to identify and describe components of interventions responsible for effectiveness. Thirteen literature databases were explored using a structured search and data extraction strategy. All included studies dealing with incident reporting described positive effects. Evidence regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of safety analysis is scarce. No studies on mitigation were included. The collected evidence on risk reduction concerns a variety of interventions to reduce medication errors, fall incidents, diagnostic errors, and adverse events in general. Most studies reported positive effects; however, interventions were often multifaceted, and it was difficult to disentangle their impact. This made it difficult to draw generic lessons from this body of research. More rigorous evaluations are needed, in particular, of continuous learning and safety analysis techniques.

BackgroundThere is a global need to assess physicians' professional performance in actual clinical practice. Valid and reliable instruments are necessary to support these efforts. This study focuses on the reliability and validity, the influences of some sociodemographic biasing factors, associations between self and other evaluations, and the number of evaluations needed for reliable assessment of a physician based on the three instruments used for the multisource assessment of physicians' professional performance in the Netherlands.MethodsThis observational validation study of three instruments underlying multisource feedback (MSF) was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 146 hospital-based physicians took part in the study. Each physician's professional performance was assessed by peers (physician colleagues), co-workers (including nurses, secretary assistants and other healthcare professionals) and patients. Physicians also completed a self-evaluation. Ratings of 864 peers, 894 co-workers and 1960 patients on MSF were available. We used principal components analysis and methods of classical test theory to evaluate the factor structure, reliability and validity of instruments. We used Pearson's correlation coefficient and linear mixed models to address other objectives.ResultsThe peer, co-worker and patient instruments respectively had six factors, three factors and one factor with high internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha 0.95 - 0.96). It appeared that only 2 percent of variance in the mean ratings could be attributed to biasing factors. Self-ratings were not correlated with peer, co-worker or patient ratings. However, ratings of peers, co-workers and patients were correlated. Five peer evaluations, five co-worker evaluations and 11 patient evaluations are required to achieve reliable results (reliability coefficient ≥ 0.70).ConclusionsThe study demonstrated that the three MSF instruments produced reliable and valid data for evaluating physicians' professional performance in the Netherlands. Scores from peers, co-workers and patients were not correlated with self-evaluations. Future research should examine improvement of performance when using MSF.

BackgroundMulti-source feedback (MSF) offers doctors feedback on their performance from peers (medical colleagues), coworkers and patients. Researchers increasingly point to the fact that only a small majority of doctors (60–70 percent) benefit from MSF. Building on medical education and social psychology literature, the authors identified several factors that may influence change in response to MSF. Subsequently, they quantitatively studied the factors that advance the use of MSF for practice change.MethodsThis observational study was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 458 specialists participated in the MSF program. Besides the collation of questionnaires, the Dutch MSF program is composed of a reflective portfolio and a facilitative interview aimed at increasing the acceptance and use of MSF. All specialists who finished a MSF procedure between May 2008 and September 2010 were invited to complete an evaluation form. The dependent variable was self-reported change. Three categories of independent variables (personal characteristics, experiences with the assessments and mean MSF ratings) were included in the analysis. Multivariate regression analysis techniques were used to identify the relation between the independent variables and specialists’ reported change in actual practice.ResultsIn total, 238 medical specialists (response rate 52 percent) returned an evaluation form and participated in the study. A small majority (55 percent) of specialists reported to have changed their professional performance in one or more aspects in response to MSF. Regression analyses revealed that two variables had the most effect on reported change. Perceived quality of mentoring positively influenced reported change (regression coefficient beta = 0.527, p < 0.05) as did negative scores offered by colleagues. (regression coefficient beta = −0.157, p < 0.05). The explained variance of these two variables combined was 34 percent.ConclusionsPerceived quality of mentoring and MSF ratings from colleagues seem to be the main motivators for the self-reported change in response to MSF by specialists. These insights could leverage in increasing the use of MSF for practice change by investing in the quality of mentors.

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have the potential to enhance the quality of health care but, as a result of suboptimal implementation, it is unclear whether they fulfil this role in physiotherapy practice. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the factors influencing PROM use in Dutch private physiotherapy practices. Method: A total of 444 physiotherapists completed a self-assessment questionnaire and uploaded the data from their electronic health record (EHR) systems to the national registry of outcome data. Univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic and linear regression analysis were used to identify the factors associated with self-reported PROM use and PROM use registered in the EHR systems, which were derived from the self-assessment questionnaire and from the data in the national registry, respectively. Five categories with nine independent variables were selected as potential factors for regression analysis. The similarity between self-reported and registered PROM use was verified. Results: On the basis of self-report and EHR report, we found that 21.6% and 29.8% of participants, respectively, used PROMs with more than 80% of their patients, and we identified the factors associated with PROM use. Conclusions: The factors associated with PROM use are EHR systems that support PROM use and more knowledge about PROM use. These findings can guide future strategies to enhance the use of PROMs in physiotherapy practice.