Designing Therapeutic Projects Within Multiprofessional Health Teams: Integrating the Dimension of Work

  • Carolina Maria do Carmo AlonsoEmail author
  • Pascal Béguin
  • Valerie Pueyo
  • Francisco Duarte
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)


This paper aims to demonstrate how the design of Therapeutic Plan (TP) is carried out by professionals of multi professional teams of Primary Care in Brazil. It is a qualitative research guided by the theoretical framework of Activity Ergonomics which included professionals from a Family Health Team (FHT) composed of: one physician, one nurse, one nursing assistant and six community health agents. The procedures of data collection were interviews and sistematic observations. The results demonstrate that the spaces for collective production of the activity, recommended for the construction of the TP, are insufficient to integrate the information coming from the real situation, as well as, to coordinate the actions that aim to solve the problems that emerge in the daily life of the service. In addition, the process of designing the TPs is still very handcrafted and little instrumentalized to favor the exchange between the different actors of the team. This frame indicates the need to deepen studies that can support the strengthening of tools and processes that favor the collective fabrication of work in the context of the Teamwork in Primary Care.


Ergonomics Teamwork Health workforce 


  1. 1.
    van Weel C (1994) Teamwork. Lancet 344(8932):1276–1279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blachman NL, Blaum CS (2016) Integrating care across disciplines. Clin Geriatr Med 32(2):373–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grumbach K, Bodenheimer T (2004) Can health care teams improve primary care practice? JAMA 291(10):1246–1251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorman S, Smith V, Kirkham S (2010) The use of an electronic patient record to facilitate a specialist palliative care multidisciplinary team meeting. Palliat Med 24(2):198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Houdt S, De Lepeleire J, Driessche KV, Thijs G, Buntinx F (2011) Multidisciplinary team meetings about a patient in primary care: an explorative study. J Prim Care Community Health 2(2):72–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brunner M et al (2015) Head and neck multidisciplinary team meetings: effect on patient management. Head Neck 37(7):1046–1050CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    van Dongen JJJ, van Bokhoven MA, Daniëls R, Lenzen SA, van der Weijden T, Beurskens A (2010) Interprofessional primary care team meetings: a qualitative approach comparing observations with personal opinions. Fam Pract. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Raine R, Raine R, a’Bháird CN, Xanthopoulou P, Wallace I, Ardron D, Harris M, Barber J, Prentice A, Gibbs S, King M, Blazeby JM (2015) Use of a formal consensus development technique to produce recommendations for improving the effectiveness of adult mental health multidisciplinary team meetings. BMC Psychiatry 15(1):143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    BRASIL PORTARIA No 4.279, DE 30 DE DEZEMBRO DE 2010. Estabelece diretrizes para a organização da Rede de Atenção à Saúde no âmbito do Sistema Único de Saúde (SUS)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Santos EOD, Coimbra VCC, Kantorski LP, Pinho LBD, Andrade APMD, Eslabão AD (2017) Reunião de equipe: proposta de organização do processo de trabalho. Revista de Pesquisa: Cuidado é Fundamental Online 9(3):606–613. Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Santa Cruz ML et al (2014) Reunião de equipe: uma reflexão sobre sua importância enquanto estratégia diferencial na gestão coletiva no Programa de Saúde da Família (PSF). Psicologia Revista 17(1/2):161–183Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fletcher TE, Ali H, Ryall C, Beeching NJ, Joekes E, Lewthwaite P (2012) The benefits of an infectious disease/radiology multidisciplinary team meeting. J Infect 65(4):363–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zarzavadjian Le Bian A, Costi R, Bruderer A, Herve C, Smadja C (2014) Multidisciplinary team meeting in digestive oncology: when opinions differ. Clin Transl Sci 7(4):319–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chinai N, Bintcliffe F, Armstrong EM, Teape J, Jones BM, Hosie KB (2013) Does every patient need to be discussed at a multidisciplinary team meeting? Clin Radiol 68(8):780–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guérin F, Laville A, Daniellou F, Duraffourg J, Kerguelen A (2001) Compreender o trabalho para transformá-lo: a prática da ergonomia. In: Compreender o trabalho para transformá-lo: a prática da ergonomiaGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abrahão J (2009) Introdução à ergonomia: da prática à teoriaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fontanella BJB, Ricas J, Turato ER (2008) Amostragem por saturação em pesquisas qualitativas em saúde: contribuições teóricas. Cadernos de saúde pública 24:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brazil (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rio de janeiro (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Occupational Therapy, Medicine SchoolUniversity of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Institute for Work Studies of Lyon, University Lumière, Lyon 2LyonFrance
  3. 3.Production Engineering Program, COPPE, Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations