Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Communication and Relational Ties in Inter-Professional Teams in Norwegian Specialized Health Care: A Multicentre Study of Relational Coordination Cover

Communication and Relational Ties in Inter-Professional Teams in Norwegian Specialized Health Care: A Multicentre Study of Relational Coordination

Open Access
|Apr 2018

Figures & Tables

Table 1

Overview of team characteristics in 23 care processes included in the valid sample, team size, fraction of women in team, age and professional group distribution and clinical procedure use in teams (N = 263).

Care processTeam sizeValid responsesAge groupFunctional groupClinical procedure
≤39≥40Reg. Nurse (somatic)PhysicianTherapy/otherIn team
NN (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)N (%)Yes/No
1. ADHD 11104 (40%)3 (75%)2 (50%)2 (50%)1 (25%)0 (0%)3 (75%)Yes
2. ADHD 223318 (54%)13 (72%)10 (56%)8 (44%)3 (17%)6 (33%)8 (44%)Yes
3. Hip arthroplasty95 (56%)4 (80%)4 (80%)1 (20%)2 (40%)1 (20%)2 (40%)Yes
4. Acute stroke1916 (79%)13 (81%)8 (50%)8 (50%)8 (50%)4 (25%)4 (25%)Yes
5. Cerebral palsy, children1411 (79%)11 (100%)1 (9%)10 (91%)0 (0%)0 (0%)11 (100%)Yes
6. Sinus surgery1913 (68%)7 (54%)5 (38%)5 (38%)4 (31%)7 (54%)2 (15%)No
7. Diabetes treatment, children1812 (67%)11 (92%)3 (23%)9 (75%)9 (75%)2 (17%)1 (8%)Yes
8. VT, diagnostic process and treatment31616 (100%)10 (63%)11 (69%)4 (25%)10 (63%)4 (25%)0 (0%)Yes
9. Elective hip surgery2016 (80%)12 (75%)4 (25%)12 (75%)9 (56%)5 (31%)2 (13%)Yes
10. Stroke105 (50%)4 (80%)2 (40%)3 (60%)1 (20%)0 (0%)4 (80%)Yes
11. In vitro fertilisation1713 (77%)11 (85%)2 (15%)11 (85%)4 (31%)2 (15%)7 (54%)Yes
12. Knee arthroplasty159 (60%)7 (78%)2 (22%)6 (67%)5 (56%)0 (0%)4 (44%)Yes
13. Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease2615 (58%)10 (67%)11(73%)4 (27%)8 (53%)5 (34%)2 (13%)No
14. Lung cancer- diagnostic process2110 (48%)6 (60%)7 (70%)3 (30%)4 (40%)5 (50%)1 (10%)No
15. Breast cancer surgery147 (50%)7 (100%)3 (43%)4 (57%)5 (71%)0 (0%)2 (29%)Yes
16. Tonsillectomy/adenotomy, children1510 (67%)6 (60%)3 (30%)7 (70%)4 (40%)3 (30%)2 (20%)Yes
17. Arthroscopy knee, meniscus surgery2515 (60%)5 (33%)8 (53%)7 (47%)5 (34%)8 (53%)2 (13%)Yes
18. Psychosis (planned admission)189 (50%)8 (89%)5 (56%)4 (44%)0 (0%)8 (89%)1 (11%)Yes
19. Psychosis (outpatient)149 (64%)5 (56%)4 (44%)5 (56%)0 (0%)6 (67%)3 (33%)Yes
20. Psychosis2413 (54%)9 (69%)4 (31%)9 (69%)1 (8%)10 (77%)2 (15%)Yes
21. Stroke rehabilitation2612 (46%)10 (83%)7 (58%)5 (42%)4 (33%)3 (25%)5 (42%)Yes
22. Tonsillectomy, adult158 (53%)5 (63%)4 (50%)4 (50%)2 (25%)5 (63%)0 (0%)Yes
23. Respiratory diseases, emergency department2217 (77%)8 (47%)9 (53%)8 (47%)9 (53%)4 (24%)2 (12%)Yes
24. Total263 (52%)185 (70%)119 (45%)142 (54%)98 (37%)88 (33%)70 (27%)

[i] 1 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, diagnostic process 1.

2 Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, diagnostic process 2.

3 Venous thrombosis, diagnostic process and treatment.

Table 2

Relational Coordination Survey mean (standard deviation) communication and relationship subscale scores according to respondent’s functional group, sex, age group, and use of clinical procedures in 23 care processes (N = 263).

Predictor variablesCommunicationRelationship
Functional Group
Registered nurse (somatic)3.3 (0.67)3.7 (0.60)
Physician3.4 (0.78)3.8 (0.61)
Therapy/others3.6 (0.63)3.8 (0.61)
Sex
Male3.3 (0.72)3.9 (0.56)
Female3.5 (0.66)3.8 (0.62)
Age group
≤393.3 (0.72)3.7 (0.64)
40–493.4 (0.69)3.8 (0.54)
≥503.5 (0.71)3.8 (0.61)
Clinical procedure
No3.1 (0.65)3.6 (0.53)
Under development3.6 (0.59)3.8 (0.44)
In use3.4 (0.72)3.9 (0.64)
Figure 1

Relational Coordination Survey communication and relationship sub-scale scores within and between unique functional groups (N = 263).

Communication sub-scale scoresUnivariateMultivariate
EstimatesEstimates
Individual predictors1B95%CIp-valueB95%CIp-value
Age (>= 40)20.05(–0.09, 0.19)0.4790.05(–0.09, 0.19)0.505
Sex30.09(–0.06, 0.24)0.2280.12(–0.06, 0.29)0.188
Use of clinical procedures40.18(–0.02, 0.37)0.0810.20(0.00, 0.41)0.049
Physician50.01(–0.14, 0.17)0.8580.14(–0.04, 0.32)0.130
Relationship sub-scale scoresUnivariateMultivariate
EstimatesEstimates
Individual predictors1B95%CIp-valueB95%CIp-value
Age (>= 40)20.04(–0.09, 0.18)0.5330.06(–0.08, 0.20)0.407
Sex3–0.17(–0.32, –0.03)0.019–0.10(–0.26, 0.07)0.259
Use of clinical procedures40.09(–0.09, 0.28)0.3280.11(–0.08, 0.30)0.269
Physician50.18(0.03, 0.33)0.0160.17(0.00, 0.34)0.051

[i] 1 Linear Mixed Effects Model, individual, random effect: team.

2 Reference category; age group ≤39.

3 Reference category; men.

4 Reference category; no clinical procedure in place.

5 Reference category; all other functional groups.

Table 4

Means (standard deviations) for Relational Coordination Survey communication and relationship sub-scale scores among 23 care processes included in the valid sample (N = 263).

Care processCommunicationRelationship
Acute stroke4.3 (0.52)4.2 (0.52)
In vitro fertilization4.3 (0.34)4.5 (0.33)
Stroke treatment4.2 (0.47)4.0 (0.46)
Stroke rehabilitation4.2 (0.45)4.3 (0.49)
Hip fracture4.0 (0.53)4.5 (0.21)
Psychosis (outpatient)3.8 (0.62)3.8 (0.56)
Psychosis (planned admission)3.8 (0.51)3.9 (0.39)
Cerebral palsy, children3.8 (0.48)3.8 (0.49)
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, diagnostic process 23.5 (0.36)4.1 (0.50)
Knee arthroplasty3.3 (0.69)3.4 (0.66)
Hip arthroplasty3.3 (0.55)3.9 (0.63)
Tonsillectomy/adenotomy, children3.3 (0.35)3.7 (0.35)
Psychosis3.2 (0.72)3.3 (0.60)
Breast cancer surgery3.2 (0.67)3.5 (0.71)
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease3.2 (0.45)3.7 (0.37)
Diabetes treatment, children3.2 (0.43)3.7 (0.24)
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, diagnostic process 13.1 (0.36)3.9 (0.21)
Tonsillectomy, adult3.0 (0.75)3.6 (0.39)
Sinus surgery3.0 (0.55)3.6 (0.36)
Arthroscopy knee, meniscus surgery2.9 (0.76)3.7 (0.57)
Lung cancer- diagnostic process2.9 (0.55)3.6 (0.53)
Respiratory diseases, emergency department2.7 (0.50)3.2 (0.71)
Venous thrombosis, diagnostic process and treatment2.7 (0.34)3.3 (0.65)
Communication sub-scale scoresUnivariateMultivariate
EstimatesEstimates
Team specific predictors1B95%CIp-valueB95%CIp-value
Proportion of women21.68(0.51, 2.85)0.0072.37(–0.10, 4.83)0.059
Proportion of team members older than 4030.46(–0.76, 1.67)0.4450.01(–1.42, 1.45)0.984
Use of clinical procedures40.21(–0.89, 1.31)0.6940.34(–0.95, 1.63)0.579
Proportion of physicians in the team5–0.32(–1.21, 0.56)0.4600.81(–0.90, 2.53)0.323
Team size6–0.02(–0.05, 0.02)0.416
Relationship sub-scale scoresUnivariateMultivariate
EstimatesEstimates
Team specific predictors1B95%CIp-valueB95%CIp-value
Proportion of women20.99(0.12, 1.85)0.0281.45(–0.41, 3.31)0.115
Proportion of team members older than 403–0.05(–0.91, 0.81)0.912–0.31(–1.39, 0.77)0.550
Use of clinical procedures40.53(–0.24, 1.29)0.1670.58(–0.39,1 .55)0.219
Proportion of physicians in the team5–0.25(–0.86, 0.37)0.4180.57(–0.72, 1.86)0.359
Team size6–0.01(–0.03, 0.02)0.678

[i] 1 Linear Regression Model, for team means.

2 Number of women in team/total number of team members.

3 Number of team members ≥40 years of age/total number of team member.

4 Reference category; no clinical procedure.

5 Number of physicians in team/total number of team members.

6 Total number of valid responses in the care process.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.3432 | Journal eISSN: 1568-4156
Language: English
Submitted on: Sep 19, 2017
Accepted on: Mar 27, 2018
Published on: Apr 27, 2018
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year

© 2018 Merethe Hustoft, Øystein Hetlevik, Jörg Aßmus, Sverre Størkson, Sturla Gjesdal, Eva Biringer, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.