The purpose of this exploratory sequential mixed methods study was to explore organizational contextual factors important to successful interprofessional collaboration (IPC) among primary care teams. In Phase 1, a single embedded case study design was utilized to understand how primary care teams describe IPC, the organizational contextual factors identified as most important to successful IPC, and differences in context between teams. In Phase 2, a quantitative survey was administered to primary care team members at 10 organizations to objectively measure the relationship between contextual factors identified in Phase 1 and IPC. In Phase 1, primary care team members generally described IPC positively with notable challenges to consistently collaborating as a team. Teams varied in terms of their team structure, physical layout of the practice, and organizational hierarchy of the practice. Organizational contextual factors that were deemed most important included team structure and resources, including staff, time, and communication tools; supportive, patient-centered culture, including team member support and expectations for IPC as the way to provide the best care to patients; leadership, including organizational leadership support and provider leadership; and organizational structure and resources, including status as a federally qualified health center (FQHC) and academic facility. In Phase 2, a strong, positive relationship was found between IPC and team member support and provider leadership. A moderate, positive relationship was found between IPC and team resources, clan culture, and perceived organizational support. A weak, positive relationship was found between IPC and patient-centered values. No statistically significant relationship was found between IPC and status as a FQHC or presence of a physician residency program. The findings support the importance of organizational context for IPC and suggest that organizational culture and leadership hold particular importance for IPC success.

Team-based primary care is an innovative care delivery model that has the potential to improve access to comprehensive, coordinated, and high-quality patient care. It is understood that in order for primary care teams to work effectively, health care providers must work across disciplinary boundaries and develop strong relationships that enable them to coordinate their roles and expertise. This research investigated how health care providers make use of different team structures (i.e., tools) to manage their interdependent work, enabling them to deliver team-based primary care. This research also examined how team structures influence the intra-team relationships important for coordinating care. By exploring the different ways primary care teams enact team structures, this research identifies ways primary care teams use team structures differently to address the needs of patients and coordinate team-based care. In-person interviews were conducted at 7 primary care clinics participating in a population health management program in a southeastern city in the United States. Research participants from various health care disciplines (e.g., medicine, nursing, social work) were asked to describe their experiences delivering team-based primary care. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative approach in order to investigate how different team structures were used to address the needs of patients and the challenges of delivering team-based primary care. The data suggested that primary care teams enact structures in different ways. In some teams, huddles were used to anticipate the specific needs of patients and coordinating care, referrals occurred via warm handoffs with co-located providers, and protocols were used to facilitate collaborative problem-solving. In other clinics, huddles were focused on clinic operations, referrals were performed using traditional methods (e.g., phone calls), and protocols were used to guide task delegation. Participants in some clinics described how team huddles were used to leverage high-quality relationships by fostering respectful interactions between team members. More research is needed to determine whether the use of patient-focused huddles, warm handoffs, and protocols that initiate problem-solving is associated with better patient outcomes, particularly for patient populations with complex medical and non-medical needs.

Background: Interprofessional primary health care teams are groups of health care professionals who bring together different expertise to provide high quality care to patients in a coordinated, integrated, seamless and accessible manner. Interprofessional primary health care teams operationalize the main model of care organization currently being implemented in Quebec. Although this model of care is conceptualized as homogeneous in terms of organizational structure, the underlying characteristics of this structure can vary considerably. Little is known about the nature and extent of this variability and its relationship to the characteristics of the populations that interprofessional teams serve. Objective: This cross-sectional study aims to develop a typology of interprofessional primary health care teams, first by describing the different organizational profiles of these teams, and then by examining the association between the characteristics of the populations served and the organizational profiles. Methods: A mixture model analysis was performed to describe the different organizational profiles among the 368 interprofessional primary health care teams in Quebec. Administrative data from the Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux were used and the following organizational characteristics were considered: numbers of full-time equivalent nurse practitioners, regular nurses, social workers, and other health professionals, number of physicians, type of institution (network, academic, regular), sector (private, public, mixed), presence of a pharmacist, number of patients enrolled, attendance rate, and partnership with another health institution. The optimal number of profiles was determined by the Akaike and Bayesian information criterion and by clinical significance. Multinomial logistic regression was conducted to examine the association between the characteristics of the populations served and the organizational profiles. Variables assessed in the model were rurality and proportions of vulnerable patients, pregnant women, patients identified as disadvantaged, those receiving home support, and those living in a long-term care facility and a measure of rurality. Results: The analysis revealed that interprofessional primary care teams were heterogeneous in terms of their organizational structure and could be classified into five distinct profiles that varied in size, composition, and focus of the team, area, and degree of partnership with other health care facilities. The five profiles were ‘Very small, private, regular, high partnered, balanced team’ (n=99; 26.9%); ‘Small, private, regular, moderately partnered, balanced team’ (n=101; 27.5%); ‘Medium, public, academically- oriented, moderately partnered, practitioner-oriented’ (n=58; 15.8%); ‘Large, private, regular, very low partnered, balanced team’ (n=50; 13.6%); and ‘Very large, private, mixed, very low partnered, balanced team’ team (n=60; 16.3%). In addition, pregnant women (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.78, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.98-3.91), disadvantaged patients ([OR] = 1.62, [CI] 1.15-2.28), those receiving home care ([OR] = 1.85, [CI] 1.28-2, 66) were more likely to be served by teams in the ‘Medium, public, academically- oriented, moderately partnered, practitioner-oriented’ profile than by a team in the ‘Very small, private, regular, high partnered, balanced team’ profile. A significant association was found between the level of rurality and the size of the interprofessional primary care team ([OR] = 0.69, [CI] 1.74-3.80). Rural patients were less likely to be served by teams from the "Medium, public, academically oriented, low partnership, practitioner-oriented team" profile ([OR] = 0.66, [CI] 0.50-0.86) and by one of the "Very large, private, mixed, very low partnership, balanced team" profile teams ([OR] = 0.69, [CI] 0.53-0.90) , than by teams from the "Very small, private, regular, high partnered, balanced team" profile. There was no statistically significant association between patients living in long-term care facilities and organizational profiles. Conclusion: This study uncovered a complex organizational typology of interprofessional primary care teams currently implemented in Quebec. These findings may inform the development of health practices and policies to optimize the structure of interprofessional primary care teams to better meet the specific needs of their populations. / Contexte : Les équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires sont des regroupements de professionnels de la santé qui rassemblent différentes expertises afin d’offrir des soins de manière coordonnée, intégrée, continue et accessible. Les équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires constituent le principal modèle de soins primaires mis en œuvre actuellement au Québec. Bien que ce modèle de soins soit conceptualisé comme homogène en termes de structure organisationnelle, les caractéristiques sous-jacentes à cette structure peuvent varier de façon considérable. Or, on sait peu de choses sur la nature et l’étendue de cette variabilité et sur sa relation avec les caractéristiques des populations que les équipes interprofessionnelles desservent. Objectif : Cette étude transversale vise à développer une typologie des équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires, d’abord en décrivant les différents profils organisationnels de ces équipes, et ensuite en examinant l’association entre les caractéristiques des populations desservies et les profils organisationnels. Méthodes : Une analyse de modèles de mélange a été réalisée afin de décrire les différents profilsorganisationnels parmi les 368 équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires au Québec. Les données administratives du Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux ont été utilisées et les caractéristiques organisationnelles suivantes ont été prises en compte: les nombres d'équivalents temps plein d'infirmières praticiennes, d'infirmières régulières, de travailleurs sociaux et d’autres professionnels de la santé, le nombre de médecins, le type d’établissement (réseau, académique, régulier), le secteur (privé, public, mixte), la présence d'un pharmacien, le nombre de patients inscrits, le taux d’assiduité et le partenariat avec un autre établissement de santé. Le nombre optimal de profils a été déterminé par les critères d’information d’Akaike et Bayésien et selon la signification clinique. Une régression logistique multinomiale a été estimée pour examiner l’association entre les caractéristiques des populations desservies et les profils organisationnels. Les caractéristiques populationnelles évaluées dans le modèle étaient les proportions de patients vulnérables, de femmes enceintes, de patients identifiés comme défavorisés, de personnes qui reçoivent un soutien à domicile et de personnes qui vivent dans un centre d’hébergement de soins de longue durée ainsi que le niveau de ruralité. Résultats : L'analyse a révélé que les équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires sont hétérogènes pour ce qui est de leur structure organisationnelle et peuvent être classées en cinq profils distincts qui varient en fonction de la taille, de la composition et de l'orientation de l'équipe, du secteur et du degré de partenariat avec d'autres établissements de santé. Les cinq profils se décrivent comme suit : « Très petite équipe, privée, régulière, à haut niveau de partenariat et équipeéquilibrée » (n=99; 26.9%); « Petite, privée, régulière, à partenariat modeste, équipe équilibrée » (n=101; 27.5%); « Moyenne, publique, d'orientation académique, à faible partenariat, équipe orientée vers les praticiens » (n=58; 15.8%) ; « Grande, privée, régulière, à très faible partenariat, équipe équilibrée » (n=50; 13.6%); et « Très grande, privée, mixte, à très faible partenariat, équipeéquilibrée » (n=60; 16.3%). En outre, les femmes enceintes (rapport de cotes [RC] = 2,78, intervalle de confiance [IC] de 95 % 1,98-3,91), les patients défavorisés ([RC] = 1,62, [IC] 1,15- 2,28) et les personnes bénéficiant de soins à domicile ([RC] = 1,85, [IC] 1,28- 2,66) avaient des probabilités plus élevées d’être desservies par des équipes provenant du profil « Moyenne, publique, d'orientation académique, à faible partenariat, équipe orientée vers les praticiens », que par des équipes du profil « Très petite, privée, régulière, à haut niveau de partenariat et équipe équilibrée ». Les patients vivant en milieu rural avaient des probabilités plus faibles d'être desservispar des équipes du profil « Moyenne, publique, d'orientation académique, à faible partenariat, équipe orientée vers les praticiens » ([RC] = 0,66, [CI] 0,50-0,86) ou par des équipes du profil « Très grande, privée, mixte, à très faible partenariat, équipe équilibrée » ([RC] = 0,69, [CI] 0,53- 0,90), que par des équipes provenant du profil « Très petite, privée, régulière, à haut niveau de partenariat et équipe équilibrée ». Il n'y avait pas d'association statistiquement significative entre les patients vivant dans des centres de soins de longue durée et les profils organisationnels. Conclusion : Ce projet a révélé une typologie complexe de l'hétérogénéité organisationnelle des équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé primaires mis en œuvre actuellement au Québec. Ces résultats pourront servir de fondement à l'élaboration de pratiques et de politiques de santé visant à optimiser la structure des équipes interprofessionnelles de soins de santé afin de mieux répondre aux besoins spécifiques de leurs populations.