Skip to main content

Table 2 Coding framework: theoretical domains and indicators, and inductive themes and codes

From: Interdisciplinary collaboration in the treatment of alcohol use disorders in a general hospital department: a mixed-method study

Theoretical domain

Theoretical indicator

Inductive theme

Inductive code

Shared goals and vision

Goals

1. Providing appropriate care

1.1. Creating appropriate plan for patient

1.2. Joint division of care responsibilities

1.3. Incorporating psychosocial aspect into care

1.4. Arranging post-discharge care

2. Providing efficient care

2.1. Efficiency and speed in decision making

3. Prevent alcohol problems

3.1. Early detection and prevention of alcohol problems

Client-centered orientation vs other allegiances

1. Client-centered interests

1.1. Providing good care

1.2. Providing preventive care

2. Professional-centered interests

2.1. Learning (from each other)

2.2. Working more efficiently

2.3. Showing one’s own expertise

3. Hospital-centered interests

3.1 Avoiding unnecessary high bed occupancy

Internalization

Mutual acquaintanceship

1. (Not) knowing each other personally

1.1. By presence or absence at/around biweekly meetings

1.2. By undertaking joint activities

1.3. Being able to find each other well and quickly

1.4. Forgetting when and which discipline to involve

1.5. Doctors less accessible by hierarchy

1.6. Due to high staff turnover of resident doctors

Trust

1. Division of roles

1.1. Clear division of roles among involved disciplines

1.2. Role uncertainty among inexperienced members

2. Competences

2.1. Confidence in competences regarding alcohol problems within own department

2.2. Less confidence in competences regarding alcohol problems of other departments

2.3. Need for (repeated) training for involved disciplines

2.4. Desire to increase awareness/insight into importance of alcohol theme in other departments

3. Collaboration culture

3.1. Pleasant open atmosphere

3.2. Feeling of connectedness

3.3. Equality between network partners

3.4. Disagreement between network partners

4. Commitment

4.1. Good engagement/commitment among network partners

4.2. Low commitment of doctors in collaboration

Governance

Centrality

1. Steering

1.1. Project leader as initiator

Leadership

1. Role of chairperson

1.1 Importance of project leader with guiding role of chairperson during meetings

1.2. Shared leadership possible

Support for innovation

1. Project expansion activities

1.1. Initiatives for expansion to other hospital departments

1.2. Additional activities around network promotion

2. Need for research

2.1. Lack and need for insight into actual effect of interdisciplinary collaboration

Connectivity

1. Contact moments design

1.1. Fixed biweekly meetings

1.2. Preferring physical meetings over digital

1.3. Desiring possibilities to start actions earlier than biweekly meetings

1.4. Limited accessibility to collaboration for other departments

1.5. Fewer contact moments and poorer collaboration due to COVID-19

1.6. Waiting lists of external partners hinder collaboration

1.7. Importance of reminding each other of biweekly meetings

2. Composition of network

2.1. Presence of fixed core network partners

2.2. Importance of involvement/presence of different and fixed expertises

2.3. Changes in composition of network partners is logical

2.4. Desire to involve various external parties more/earlier

2.5. Low involvement of various external parties is difficult

Formalization

Formalization tools

1. Protocols

1.1. Bureaucracy and protocols of hospital hinders cooperation

1.2. Inclusion of protocol for alcohol problems in induction pack for resident doctors

1.3. Desire for structured protocol with working procedures and division of responsibilities

1.4. Protocols not followed

2. Funding

1.1. Difficulties regarding funding of external partners hinders collaboration

Information exchange

1. Ways of exchanging information

1.1. During biweekly meetings

1.2. Via telephone or e-mail

1.3. Processing information and action items in Electronic Health Records (for hospital professionals)

2. Evaluations of information exchange

1.1. Lack and need for information about post-discharge care process

1.2. Gaps in reporting/transmission of information

1.3. No changes desired