4.6 Article

Applying Organizational Science to Health Care: A Framework for Collaborative Practice

Journal

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
Volume 88, Issue 7, Pages 952-957

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31829523d1

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Josiah H. Macy Jr. Foundation
  2. Donald W. Reynolds Foundation
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [UL1TR000058]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Developing interprofessional education (IPE) curricula that improve collaborative practice across professions has proven challenging. A theoretical basis for understanding collaborative practice in health care settings is needed to guide the education and evaluation of health professions trainees and practitioners and support the team-based delivery of care. IPE should incorporate theory-driven, evidence-based methods and build competency toward effective collaboration. In this article, the authors review several concepts from the organizational science literature and propose using these as a framework for understanding how health care teams function. Specifically, they outline the team process model of action and planning phases in collaborative work; discuss leadership and followership, including how locus (a leader's integration into a team's usual work) and formality (a leader's responsibility conferred by the traditional hierarchy) affect team functions; and describe dynamic delegation, an approach to conceptualizing escalation and delegation within health care teams. For each concept, they identify competencies for knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors to aid in the development of innovative curricula to improve collaborative practice. They suggest that gaining an understanding of these principles will prepare health care trainees, whether team leaders or members, to analyze team performance, adapt behaviors that improve collaboration, and create team-based health care delivery processes that lead to improved clinical outcomes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available