It's how we communicate! Exploring face-to-face versus electronic communication networks in multidisciplinary teams.
Journal
Health care management review
ISSN: 1550-5030
Titre abrégé: Health Care Manage Rev
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7611530
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
entrez:
25
2
2021
pubmed:
26
2
2021
medline:
24
11
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous research suggests that multidisciplinary team communication networks enhance knowledge exchange, learning, and quality of care in health organizations. However, little is known about team members' reliance on face-to-face versus electronic-based communication networks for information and knowledge exchange. The aim of the study was to describe patterns of face-to-face versus electronic-based communication networks in a multidisciplinary team and to explore the relationships between team communication networks and performance, measured as promptness of treatment implementation. We collected data on work-based communication among members of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in a large Italian research hospital. A social network survey was administered in 2016 to all board members to gather network data on face-to-face interaction and the use of electronically based communication channels (e-mail, text messages, and WhatsApp) for sharing clinical knowledge. Twenty physicians (71%) completed the survey. Archival data were accessed to obtain detailed information about 222 clinical cases discussed over a 1-year period during weekly MDT meetings. Minutes of board meetings were used to link all discussed cases to team members. We used the multiple regression quadratic assignment procedure (MR-QAP) to study associations between team member characteristics and communication networks. Negative binomial regression was employed to test relationships between team communication networks and performance. MDT members relied on different communication channels for knowledge sharing. The geographical proximity of team members positively predicted the frequency of face-to-face interaction. Physicians' seniority was related to the use of WhatsApp as a communication channel; greater interaction of this type was observed between team members of different seniority. Performance was related positively to face-to-face communication networks but negatively to communication via WhatsApp. Although team communication networks are important for knowledge exchange, health administrators must pay attention to the increasing propensity of team members to rely on electronic-based communication. The use of these easy-to-use tools can hinder the quality of group discussion and debate.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Previous research suggests that multidisciplinary team communication networks enhance knowledge exchange, learning, and quality of care in health organizations. However, little is known about team members' reliance on face-to-face versus electronic-based communication networks for information and knowledge exchange.
PURPOSE
The aim of the study was to describe patterns of face-to-face versus electronic-based communication networks in a multidisciplinary team and to explore the relationships between team communication networks and performance, measured as promptness of treatment implementation.
METHODOLOGY
We collected data on work-based communication among members of a multidisciplinary tumor board (MDT) in a large Italian research hospital. A social network survey was administered in 2016 to all board members to gather network data on face-to-face interaction and the use of electronically based communication channels (e-mail, text messages, and WhatsApp) for sharing clinical knowledge. Twenty physicians (71%) completed the survey. Archival data were accessed to obtain detailed information about 222 clinical cases discussed over a 1-year period during weekly MDT meetings. Minutes of board meetings were used to link all discussed cases to team members. We used the multiple regression quadratic assignment procedure (MR-QAP) to study associations between team member characteristics and communication networks. Negative binomial regression was employed to test relationships between team communication networks and performance.
RESULTS
MDT members relied on different communication channels for knowledge sharing. The geographical proximity of team members positively predicted the frequency of face-to-face interaction. Physicians' seniority was related to the use of WhatsApp as a communication channel; greater interaction of this type was observed between team members of different seniority. Performance was related positively to face-to-face communication networks but negatively to communication via WhatsApp.
PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS
Although team communication networks are important for knowledge exchange, health administrators must pay attention to the increasing propensity of team members to rely on electronic-based communication. The use of these easy-to-use tools can hinder the quality of group discussion and debate.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33630507
doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000246
pii: 00004010-202104000-00007
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
153-161Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.
Références
American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. (2011). Cancer program standards 2012: Ensuring patient-centered care. Chicago, IL.
Barry M. J. (2010). The prostate cancer treatment bazaar: Comment on “Physician visits prior to treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer.”Archival of Internal Medicine, 170(5), 450–452.
Becker-Beck U., Wintermantel M., Borg A. (2005). Principles of regulating interaction in teams practicing face-to-face communication versus teams practicing computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 36(4), 499–536.
Blazeby J. M., Wilson L., Metcalfe C., Nicklin J., English R., Donovan J. L. (2006). Analysis of clinical decision-making in multi-disciplinary cancer teams. Annals of Oncology, 17, 457–460.
Bonito J. A. (2002). The analysis of participation in small groups. Small Group Research, 33(4), 412–438.
Borgatti S. P. (2002). Netdraw: Network visualization software. Boston, MA: Analytic Technologies.
Brown M. K., Huettner B., James-Tanny C. (2007). Managing virtual teams: Getting the most from wikis, blogs, and other collaborative tools. Sudbury, MA: Wordware Publishing.
Bunger A. C., Lengnick-Hall R. (2018). Do learning collaboratives strengthen communication? A comparison of organizational team communication networks over time. Health Care Management Review, 43(1), 50–60.
Cardon P. W., Marshall B. (2015). The hype and reality of social media use for work collaboration and team communication. International Journal of Business Communication, 52(3), 273–293.
Clark H. H., Marshall C. R. (1981). Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In Joshi A. K., Webber B. L., Sag I. A. (Eds.), Elements of discourse understanding (pp. 10–63). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Cumin D., Skilton C., Weller J. (2017). Information transfer in multidisciplinary operating room teams: A simulation-based observational study. BMJ Quality & Safety, 26(3), 209–216.
Cunningham F. C., Ranmuthugala G., Plumb J., Georgiou A., Westbrook J. I., Braithwaite J. (2012). Health professional networks as a vector for improving healthcare quality and safety: A systematic review. BMJ Quality & Safety, 21(3), 239–249.
Dekker D., Krackhardt D., Snijders T. A. B. (2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psikometrica, 72, 563–581.
Fehring K. A., De Martino I., McLawhorn A. S., Sculco P. K. (2017). Social media: Physicians-to-physicians education and communication. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, 10, 275–277.
Fleissig A., Jenkins V., Catt S., Fallowfield L. (2006). Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: Are they effective in the UK?Lancet Oncology, 7(11), 935–943.
Hackman J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Setting the stage for great performances. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Huber G. P., Lewis K. (2010). Cross-understanding: Implications for group cognition and performance. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 6–26.
Johnston M. J., King D., Arora S., Behar N., Athanasious T., Sevdalis N., Darzi A. (2015). Smartphones let surgeons know WhatsApp: An analysis of communication in emergency medical teams. American Journal of Surgery, 209, 45–51.
Krackhardt D. (1988). Predicting with networks: A multiple regression approach to analyzing dyadic data. Social Networks, 10, 359–381.
Lee Y., Cleary P., Nembhard I. (2018). Dissatisfied creators: Dissatisfaction, staff characteristics and creativity in health care teams. Paper presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL, 10–14 August.
Lewis K. (2004). Knowledge and performance in knowledge-worker teams: A longitudinal study of transactive memory systems. Management Science, 50(11), 1519–1533.
Mansi G., Levy Y. (2013). Do instant messaging interruptions help or hinder knowledge workers’ task performance?International Journal of Information Management, 33(3), 591–596.
Mascia D., Di Vincenzo F., Iacopino V., Fantini M. P., Cicchetti A. (2015). Unfolding similarity in interphysician networks: The impact of institutional and professional homophily. BMC Health Services Research, 15, 92.
Mascia D., Pallotti F., Dandi R. (2018). Determinants of knowledge-sharing networks in primary care. Health Care Management Review, 43(2), 104–114.
Mitchell R., Boyle B., O’Brien R., Malik A., Tian K., Parker V., Chiang V. (2017). Balancing cognitive diversity and mutual understanding in multidisciplinary teams. Health Care Management Review, 42(1), 42–52.
Naccarella L., Raggatt M., Redley B. (2018). The influence of spatial design on team communication in hospital emergency departments. Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 1–16.
NHS National Cancer Action Team. (2010, February). The characteristics of an effective multidisciplinary team (MDT). http://www.ncin.org.uk/mdt
Payne K. B., Wharrad H., Watts K. (2012). Smartphone and medical related app use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): A regional survey. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12, 121.
Reagans R., Miron-Spektor E., Argote L. (2016). Knowledge utilization, coordination, and team performance. Organization Science, 27(5), 1108–1124.
Rodriguez H. P., Chen X., Martinez A. E., Friedberg M. W. (2016). Availability of primary care team members can improve teamwork and readiness for change. Health Care Management Review, 41(4), 286–295.
Rodriguez H. P., Meredith L. S., Hamilton A. B., Yano E. M., Rubenstein L. V. (2015). Huddle up!: The adoption and use of structured team communication for VA medical home implementation. Health Care Management Review, 40(4), 286–299.
Ruhstaller T., Roe H., Thurlimann B., Nicoll J. J. (2006). The multidisciplinary meeting: An indispensable aid to communication between different specialties. European Journal of Cancer, 42, 2459–2462.
Song H., Ryan M., Tendulkar S., Fisher J., Martin J., Peters A. S., Singer S. J. (2017). Team dynamics, clinical work satisfaction, and patient care coordination between primary care providers: A mixed methods study. Health Care Management Review, 42(1), 28–41.
Tenkasi R. V., Chesmore M. C. (2003). Social networks and planned organizational change: The impact of strong network ties on effective change implementation and use. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(3), 281–300.
Uddin S., Hamra J., Hossain L. (2013). Mapping and modeling of physician collaboration network. Statistics in Medicine, 32(20), 3529–3551.
Verslype C., Rosmorduc O., Rougier P.; & ESMO Guidelines Working Group. (2012). Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO–ESDO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Annals of Oncology, 23(7), vii41–vii48.
Wasserman S., Faust K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Yousefi-Nooraie R., Akbari-Kamrani M., Hanneman R. A., Etemadi A. (2008). Association between co-authorship network and scientific productivity and impact indicators in academic medical research centers: A case study in Iran. Health Research Policy and Systems, 6, 9.