Objectives To explore professionals' experiences and perceptions of whether, how, and what types of conflicts affected the quality of patient care. Patients and Methods We conducted 82 semistructured interviews with randomly selected health care professionals in a Swiss teaching hospital (October 2014 and March 2016). Participants related stories of team conflicts (intra-/interprofessional, among protagonists at the same or different hierarchical levels) and the perceived consequences for patient care. We analyzed quality of care using the dimensions of care proposed by the Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (safety, effectiveness, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, and equity). Results Seventy-seven of 130 conflicts had no perceived consequences for patient care. Of the 53 conflicts (41%) with potential perceived consequences, the most common were care not provided in a timely manner to patients (delays, longer hospitalization), care not being patient-centered, and less efficient care. Intraprofessional conflicts were linked with less patient-centered care, whereas interprofessional conflicts were linked with less timely care. Conflicts among protagonists at the same hierarchical level were linked with less timely care and less patient-centered care. In some situations, perceived unsatisfactory quality of care generated team conflicts. Conclusion Based on participants' assessments, 4 of 10 conflict stories had potential consequences for the quality of patient care. The most common consequences were failure to provide timely, patient-centered, and efficient care. Management of hospitals should consider team conflicts as a potential threat to quality of care and support conflict management programs.

BackgroundEffective interprofessional collaboration requires that team members share common perceptions and expectations of each other's roles.ObjectiveDescribe and compare residents’ and nurses’ perceptions and expectations of their own and each other’s professional roles in the context of an Internal Medicine ward.MethodsA convenience sample of 14 residents and 14 nurses volunteers from the General Internal Medicine Division at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland, were interviewed to explore their perceptions and expectations of residents’ and nurses’ professional roles, for their own and the other profession. Interviews were analysed using thematic content analysis. The same respondents also filled a questionnaire asking their own intended actions and the expected actions from the other professional in response to 11 clinical scenarios.ResultsThree main themes emerged from the interviews: patient management, clinical reasoning and decision-making processes, and roles in the team. Nurses and residents shared general perceptions about patient management. However, there was a lack of shared perceptions and expectations regarding nurses’ autonomy in patient management, nurses’ participation in the decision-making process, professional interdependence, and residents’ implication in teamwork. Results from the clinical scenarios showed that nurses’ intended actions differed from residents’ expectations mainly regarding autonomy in patient management. Correlation between residents’ expectations and nurses’ intended actions was 0.56 (p = 0.08), while correlation between nurses’ expectations and residents’ intended actions was 0.80 (p<0.001).ConclusionsThere are discordant perceptions and unmet expectations among nurses and residents about each other’s roles, including several aspects related to the decision-making process. Interprofessional education should foster a shared vision of each other’s roles and clarify the boundaries of autonomy of each profession.

BackgroundEffective teamwork is necessary for optimal patient care. There is insufficient understanding of interactions between physicians and nurses on internal medicine wards.ObjectiveTo describe resident physicians’ and nurses’ actual behaviours contributing to teamwork quality in the setting of a simulated internal medicine ward.MethodsA volunteer sample of 14 pairs of residents and nurses in internal medicine was asked to manage one non-urgent and one urgent clinical case in a simulated ward, using a high-fidelity manikin. After the simulation, participants attended a stimulated-recall session during which they viewed the videotape of the simulation and explained their actions and perceptions. All simulations were transcribed, coded, and analyzed, using a qualitative method (template analysis). Quality of teamwork was assessed, based on patient management efficiency and presence of shared management goals and of team spirit.ResultsMost resident-nurse pairs tended to interact in a traditional way, with residents taking the leadership and nurses executing medical prescriptions and assuming their own specific role. They also demonstrated different types of interactions involving shared responsibilities and decision making, constructive suggestions, active communication and listening, and manifestations of positive team building. The presence of a leader in the pair or a truly shared leadership between resident and nurse contributed to teamwork quality only if both members of the pair demonstrated sufficient autonomy. In case of a lack of autonomy of one member, the other member could compensate for it, if his/her own autonomy was sufficiently strong and if there were demonstrations of mutual listening, information sharing, and positive team building.ConclusionsAlthough they often relied on traditional types of interaction, residents and nurses also demonstrated readiness for increased sharing of responsibilities. Interprofessional education should insist on better redefinition of respective roles and reinforce behaviours shown to enhance teamwork quality.

Purpose Efforts to address inequities in medical education are centered on a dialogue of deficits that highlight negative underrepresented in medicine (UIM) learner experiences and lower performance outcomes. An alternative narrative explores perspectives on achievement and equity in assessment. This study sought to understand UIM learner perceptions of successes and equitable assessment practices. Method Using narrative research, investigators selected a purposeful sample of self-identified UIM fourth-year medical students and senior-level residents and conducted semistructured interviews. Questions elicited personal stories of achievement during clinical training, clinical assessment practices that captured achievement, and equity in clinical assessment. Using re-storying and thematic analysis, investigators coded transcripts and synthesized data into themes and representative stories. Results Twenty UIM learners (6 medical students and 14 residents) were interviewed. Learners often thought about equity during clinical training and provided personal definitions of equity in assessment. Learners shared stories that reflected their achievements in patient care, favorable assessment outcomes, and growth throughout clinical training. Sound assessments that captured achievements included frequent observations with real-time feedback on predefined expectations by supportive, longitudinal clinical supervisors. Finally, equitable assessment systems were characterized as sound assessment systems that also avoided comparison to peers, used narrative assessment, assessed patient care and growth, trained supervisors to avoid bias, and acknowledged learner identity. Conclusions UIM learners characterized equitable and sound assessment systems that captured achievements during clinical training. These findings guide future efforts to create an inclusive, fair, and equitable clinical assessment experience.