Collecting pieces for the 'puzzle': Nurses' intraprofessional collaboration in the hospital-to-home transition of older patients.

cross‐sectoral collaboration cross‐sectoral communication cross‐sectoral transition discharge of older patients homecare nursing intraprofessional collaboration of nurses person‐centred care qualitative research

Journal

Scandinavian journal of caring sciences
ISSN: 1471-6712
Titre abrégé: Scand J Caring Sci
Pays: Sweden
ID NLM: 8804206

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
22 May 2024
Historique:
revised: 21 04 2024
received: 11 09 2023
accepted: 08 05 2024
medline: 23 5 2024
pubmed: 23 5 2024
entrez: 23 5 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Communication is a key factor in intraprofessional collaboration between hospital nurses and homecare nurses in hospital-to-home transitions of older patients with complex care needs. Gaining knowledge of the nature of cross-sectoral communication is crucial for understanding how nurses collaborate to ensure a seamless patient trajectory. This study explores how cross-sectoral electronic health records communication influences collaboration between hospital nurses and homecare nurses when discharging older patients with complex care needs. The study is based on qualitative group interviews with six hospital nurses and 14 homecare nurses working at different hospitals and municipalities across Denmark. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, as described by Braun and Clark. The themes Collecting pieces for the 'puzzle': Losing the holistic picture of the patient; Working blindfolded: limited provision of and access to critical information; and Bypassing the 'invisible wall': dialogue supports cohesion illustrate the impact of organisational structures within electronic health records have on hospital nurses' and homecare nurses' intraprofessional collaboration across sectors. Challenges with predefined and word-limited elements in digital communication, and inadequate and limited access to significant medical information were identified. To compensate for the inadequacy of the electronic health records, direct contact and dialogue were emphasised as ways of fostering successful collaboration and overcoming the barriers created by electronic health records. Despite hospital nurses' and homecare nurses' desire to conduct holistic patient assessments, their ability to collaborate was hindered by failures in electronic health record communication resulting from restrictive organisational structures across sectors. Thus, it became necessary for hospital nurses and homecare nurses to bypass the electronic health record system and engage in dialogue to provide holistic care when discharging older patients with complex care needs. However, by hospital nurses and homecare nurses compensating for counter-productive organisational structures, problems brought about by the electronic health record system paradoxically remain invisible.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND AIM OBJECTIVE
Communication is a key factor in intraprofessional collaboration between hospital nurses and homecare nurses in hospital-to-home transitions of older patients with complex care needs. Gaining knowledge of the nature of cross-sectoral communication is crucial for understanding how nurses collaborate to ensure a seamless patient trajectory. This study explores how cross-sectoral electronic health records communication influences collaboration between hospital nurses and homecare nurses when discharging older patients with complex care needs.
METHOD METHODS
The study is based on qualitative group interviews with six hospital nurses and 14 homecare nurses working at different hospitals and municipalities across Denmark. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis, as described by Braun and Clark.
FINDINGS RESULTS
The themes Collecting pieces for the 'puzzle': Losing the holistic picture of the patient; Working blindfolded: limited provision of and access to critical information; and Bypassing the 'invisible wall': dialogue supports cohesion illustrate the impact of organisational structures within electronic health records have on hospital nurses' and homecare nurses' intraprofessional collaboration across sectors. Challenges with predefined and word-limited elements in digital communication, and inadequate and limited access to significant medical information were identified. To compensate for the inadequacy of the electronic health records, direct contact and dialogue were emphasised as ways of fostering successful collaboration and overcoming the barriers created by electronic health records.
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Despite hospital nurses' and homecare nurses' desire to conduct holistic patient assessments, their ability to collaborate was hindered by failures in electronic health record communication resulting from restrictive organisational structures across sectors. Thus, it became necessary for hospital nurses and homecare nurses to bypass the electronic health record system and engage in dialogue to provide holistic care when discharging older patients with complex care needs. However, by hospital nurses and homecare nurses compensating for counter-productive organisational structures, problems brought about by the electronic health record system paradoxically remain invisible.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38778752
doi: 10.1111/scs.13275
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : European Commission

Informations de copyright

© 2024 The Author(s). Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Nordic College of Caring Science.

Références

Moore J, Prentice D, Crawford J. Collaboration among nurses when transitioning older adults between hospital and community settings: a scoping review. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(19–20):2769–2785.
Norlyk A, Deleuran CL, Martinsen B. Struggles with infrastructures of information concerning hospital‐to‐home transitions. Br J Community Nurs. 2020;25(1):10–15.
Dolu İ, Naharcı M, Logan PA, Paal P, Vaismoradi M. Transitional ‘hospital to home’ care of older patients: healthcare professionals' perspectives. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35(3):871–880.
Jeffs L, Saragosa M, Law M, Kuluski K, Espin S, Parker H, et al. The varying roles of nurses during interfacility care transitions. J Nurs Care Qual. 2018;33(1):E1–E6.
Lemetti T, Puukka P, Stolt M, Suhonen R. Nurse‐to‐nurse collaboration between nurses caring for older people in hospital and primary health care: a cross‐sectional study. J Clin Nurs. 2021;30(7–8):1154–1167.
Lemetti T, Voutilainen P, Stolt M, Eloranta S, Suhonen R. Older patients' experiences of nurse‐to‐nurse collaboration between hospital and primary health care in the care chain for older people. Scand J Caring Sci. 2019;33(3):600–608.
Karam M, Brault I, Van Durme T, Macq J. Comparing interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in healthcare: a systematic review of the qualitative research. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;79:70–83.
van Walraven C, Bennett C, Jennings A, Austin PC, Forster AJ. Proportion of hospital readmissions deemed avoidable: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2011;183(7):E391–E402.
Galvin K, Todres L. Caring and well‐being: a lifeworld approach. London: Routledge; 2013. p. 1–206.
Norlyk A, Martinsen B, Dreyer P, Haahr A. Why phenomenology came into nursing: the legitimacy and usefulness of phenomenology in theory building in the discipline of nursing. Int J Qual Methods. 2023;22:16094069231210433.
Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press [“collaboration, n.”]. Available from: https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/36197
Henneman EA, Lee JL, Cohen JI. Collaboration: a concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 1995;21(1):103–109.
Sims S, Hewitt G, Harris R. Evidence of collaboration, pooling of resources, learning and role blurring in interprofessional healthcare teams: a realist synthesis. J Interprof Care. 2015;29(1):20–25.
Meleis AI. On being and becoming a scholar. Theoretical nursing – development and Progress. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. p. 7–20.
Petersen HV, Foged S, Nørholm V. “It is two worlds” cross‐sectoral nurse collaboration related to care transitions: a qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2019;28(9–10):1999–2008.
Andersen AB, Beedholm K, Kolbaek R, Frederiksen K. The role of ‘mediators’ of communication in health professionals' intersectoral collaboration: an ethnographically inspired study. Nurs Inq. 2019;26(4):e12310.
Agerholm J, Jensen NK, Liljas A. Healthcare professionals' perception of barriers and facilitators for care coordination of older adults with complex care needs being discharged from hospital: a qualitative comparative study of two Nordic capitals. BMC Geriatr. 2023;23(1):32.
Høgsgaard D. Det muliges kunst. Om betingelserne for det tværsektorielle samarbejde i et New Public Managementorienteret sundhedsvæsen. Tidsskrift for Arbejdsliv. 2018;18(3):64–80.
Laugaland K, Aase K, Barach P. Interventions to improve patient safety in transitional care – a review of the evidence. Work. 2012;41(Suppl 1):2915–2924.
Elkjær M, Gram B, Mogensen CB, Brabrand M, Primdahl J. Readmission is experienced as inevitable among older adults receiving homecare: a qualitative interview study. Scand J Caring Sci. 2023;37:740–751.
Kirsebom M, Wadensten B, Hedström M. Communication and coordination during transition of older persons between nursing homes and hospital still in need of improvement. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(4):886–895.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
Braun V, Clarke V. One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis? Qual Res Psychol. 2021;18(3):328–352.
Green J, Thorogood N. Developing qualitative research proposals. In: Seaman J, editor. Qualitative methods for health research. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications; 2008. p. 49–81.
Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample‐size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–216.
Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–1760.
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–2194.
Galvin K. ‘Getting back to the matters’: why the existential matters in care. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35(3):679–684.
Chao C‐A. The impact of electronic health records on collaborative work routines: a narrative network analysis. Int J Med Inform. 2016;94:100–111.
Varpio L, Rashotte J, Day K, King J, Kuziemsky C, Parush A. The EHR and building the patient's story: a qualitative investigation of how EHR use obstructs a vital clinical activity. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(12):1019–1028.
Strandås M, Wackerhausen S, Bondas T. Gaming the system to care for patients: a focused ethnography in Norwegian public home care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):121.
Duval Jensen J, Ledderer L, Kolbæk R, Beedholm K. Fragmented care trajectories in municipal healthcare: local sensemaking of digital documentation. Digit Health. 2023;9:20552076231180521.
Møller N, Lerbæk B, Kollerup MG, Berthelsen C. Building bridges from different settings to a common ground – strengthening transitions for older patients with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative descriptive design. Nord J Nurs Res. 2022;43(1):20571585221114514.
Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1985.
Halkier B. Fokusgrupper [focus groups]. 2nd ed. Frederiksberg: Forlaget Samfundslitteratur; 2012.
Archibald MM, Ambagtsheer RC, Casey MG, Lawless M. Using zoom videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers and participants. Int J Qual Methods. 2019;18:1609406919874596.
Boland J, Banks S, Krabbe R, Lawrence S, Murray T, Henning T, et al. A COVID‐19‐era rapid review: using zoom and skype for qualitative group research. Public Health Res Pract. 2022;32(2), p. 1–9

Auteurs

Mette Frier Hansen (MF)

Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark.

Bente Martinsen (B)

Department of People and Technology, Roskilde University, Roskilde, Denmark.

Kathleen Galvin (K)

School of Sport and Health Sciences, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK.

Bjørn Porup Thomasen (BP)

The Danish Armed Forces, Ballerup, Denmark.

Annelise Norlyk (A)

Department of Public Health, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Department of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, Agder University Grimstad, Grimstad, Norway.

Classifications MeSH