10.5061/DRYAD.Q83BK3JG8
Cunningham, Una
0000-0001-8855-2560
University College Dublin
De Brún, Aoife
University College Dublin
Mayumi, Willgerodt
University of Washington
Blakeney, Erin
University of Washington
McAuliffe, Eilish
University College Dublin
Appendices interview formats
Dryad
dataset
2021
FOS: Health sciences
Health Research Board
https://ror.org/003hb2249
RL-2015-1588
The Education Practice Partnership to Improve Advanced Heart Failure
(AHF) Training and Outcomes for Rural and Underserved Populations in an
Accountable Care Organization (ACO), DHHS, and HRSA *
UD7HP26909
National Heart Lung and Blood Institute
https://ror.org/012pb6c26
5K12HL137940-02
2021-03-04T00:00:00Z
2021-03-04T00:00:00Z
en
https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2019.1604496
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4566308
88341 bytes
3
CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication
Background: Literature on multi-disciplinary healthcare team interventions
to improve quality and safety of care in acute hospital contexts tends to
focus on evaluating the success of the intervention by assessing patient
outcomes. In contrast, there is little focus on the team who delivered the
intervention, how the team worked to deliver the intervention or the
context in which it was delivered. In practice, there is a poor
understanding of why some interventions work and are sustained and why
others fail. This research seeks to deepen understanding of enablers and
barriers for effective team interventions. Using two case studies, we will
evaluate our initial programme theories to understand, what worked for
whom, in what conditions, why, to what extent and how? Methods: A realist
evaluation approach will be employed to test a previously formed set of
initial programme theories. Two multi-disciplinary acute hospital team
interventions in two different geographical and organisational contexts
will be identified. In case study 1, a theory based approach to
interviewing will be used and in case study 2, interview transcripts
obtained using a semi- structured approach for primary research purposes
will undergo secondary analysis. Researchers will iteratively interrogate
both data sets to identify the characteristics or resources present in
each context that influenced how the team intervention worked to produce
particular outcomes. Data will then be synthesised across contexts in
order to reach a middle range theory and produce more generalisable
insights. Ethics and Dissemination: Favourable ethical opinion has been
received from University College Dublin Ethics Committee
(HREC-LS-16-116397) for this research without requirement for further
ethical review (LS-E-19-109) for testing in healthcare organisational
contexts. Written permissions have been secured from both organisations
involved in the case studies. Results will be disseminated via peer-review
journals, national and international conferences and presentations to
relevant stakeholder groups.
Data was collected via one to one interviews using these interview formats.
These are interviews only.