Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Apr 19;22(1):76.
doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01406-y.

Patient and family views of team functioning in primary healthcare teams with nurse practitioners: a survey of patient-reported experience and outcomes

Affiliations

Patient and family views of team functioning in primary healthcare teams with nurse practitioners: a survey of patient-reported experience and outcomes

Kelley Kilpatrick et al. BMC Fam Pract. .

Abstract

Background: Nurse practitioners (NPs) have been added to primary healthcare teams to improve access to care. Team processes, including communication and decision-making, explicate how patients and families view team functioning. Yet, important gaps exist in our understanding of patient-reported experience and outcomes at the level of the healthcare team. We aimed to examine the influence of individual, team, and organizational characteristics, and role clarity on outcomes of care mediated by team processes in primary healthcare teams that include NPs.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey across six sites representing practices with NPs in Québec, Canada, was conducted between March 2018 and April 2019 as part of a multiple-case study. Patients and families (n = 485; response rate: 53%) completed a validated questionnaire, which included a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) and a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of team functioning (Cronbach alpha: 0.771 (PROM) to 0.877 (PREM)). We performed logistic regression and mediation analyses to examine relationships between the individual, team, and organizational characteristics, role clarity, and outcomes of care mediated by team processes.

Results: Patients and families expressed positive perceptions of team functioning (mean 4.97/6 [SD 0.68]) and outcomes of care (5.08/6 [0.74]). Also, high team processes (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 14.92 [95% CI 8.11 to 27.44]) was a significant predictor of high outcomes of care. Role clarity (indirect effect coefficient ab = 6.48 [95% CI 3.79 to 9.56]), living in an urban area (-1.32 [-2.59 to -0.13]), patient as respondent (-1.43 [-2.80 to -0.14]), and income (1.73 [0.14 to 3.45]) were significant predictors of outcomes of care mediated by team processes.

Conclusions: This study provides key insights on how primary healthcare teams with NPs contribute to team functioning, using a validated instrument consistent with a conceptual framework. Results highlight that high role clarity, living in a non urban area, family as respondent, and adequate income were significant predictors of high outcomes of care mediated by high team processes. Additional research is needed to compare teams with and without NPs in different settings, to further explicate the relationships identified in our study.

Keywords: Mediation; Nurse practitioner; Patient-reported experience measure; Patient-reported outcome measure; Perceptions of team effectiveness; Process; Team functioning.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Relationships between the independent variables, team processes, and outcomes of care. * Independent variable presenting a statistically significant relationship in at least one of the three models
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Indirect effects of the independent variables on outcomes of care mediated by team processes. * Significant direct effect on outcomes of care (all p < 0.05). † Significant coefficient of indirect effect of role clarity on outcomes of care (ab = 6.48; 95% CI [3.79 to 9.56]; p < 0.001). ‡ Significant coefficient of indirect effect of location on outcomes of care (ab = -1.32; 95% CI [-2.59 to -0.13]; p < 0.05). § Significant coefficient of indirect effect of patient as respondent on outcomes of care (ab = -1.43; 95% CI [-2.80 to -0.14]; p < 0.05). ¶ Significant coefficient of indirect effect of perceived income on outcomes of care (ab = 1.73; 95% CI [0.14 to 3.45]; p < 0.05). AOR = adjusted odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; PREM = patient-reported experience measure; PROM = patient-reported outcome measure

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bull C, Byrnes J, Hettiarachchi R, Downes M. A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures. Health Serv Res. 2019 doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Health Measures. Intro to PROMIS- Adult Assessment. PROMIS 2020; http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-t.... Accessed 18 Dec 2020.
    1. Murphy M, Hollinghurst S, Salisbury C. Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: A systematic review. BMC Fam Pract. 2018 doi: 10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kilpatrick K, Tchouaket E, Paquette L, Guillemette C, Jabbour M, Landry V, et al. Measuring patient and family perceptions of processes in healthcare teams: Questionnaire development and psychometric evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3808-0. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ramaswamy R, Reed J, Livesley N, Boguslavsky V, Garcia-Elorrio E, Sax S, et al. Unpacking the black box of improvement. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources