Advertisement

Teamwork — delegated or shared?

  • John D. Williamson
  • John Smith
  • David Brooks

Abstract

The acceptance of the primary care health team idea raises the issues of the various members of the team working together. Delegation implies hierarchical levels, leaders, directives and responsibilities. It raises sensitive interprofessional issues and decisions on who is ‘boss’. Sharing implies greater equality and democratic associations between colleagues who respect one another. It raises the same pertinent issues as to who should act as leader and whether his/her role will be accepted by the others.

Keywords

General Practitioner Home Visit Royal College Practice Nurse Health Visitor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abse, D. (1967). Medicine on Trial. (London: Aldus Books).Google Scholar
  2. Bowling, A. (1981). Delegation to nurses in general practice. J. R. Coll. Gen.Practit., 31, 485–490Google Scholar
  3. Bradshaw, J. (1978). Doctors on Trial. ( London: Wildwood House )Google Scholar
  4. Carey-Smith, K. A., Dreaper, R. E. and Robinson, N. A. (1972). Home visits–the patient’s viewpoint. J. R. Coll. Gen. Practit., 22, 857–865Google Scholar
  5. Carlson, R. (1975). The End of Medicine. ( New York: John Wiley and Sons )Google Scholar
  6. Cartwright, A. (1967). Doctors and their Patients. ( London: Routledge and Kegan Paul )Google Scholar
  7. Cross, H. D. (1974). The case for problem-orientated medical records. Br. J. Hosp. Med., 11, 65–68Google Scholar
  8. Cunningham, D.J., Bevan, J. M. and Floyd, C.B. (1972). The role of the practice nurse from the patient’s point of view. Community Med., 128, 534–538Google Scholar
  9. Danaher, K. (1977). Research memorandum from the Guy’s Self-Treatment Project.Google Scholar
  10. Department of Health and Social Services (1974). Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England ( London: H M SO )Google Scholar
  11. Essex, B. (1976). Diagnostic Pathways in Clinical Medicine. ( Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone )Google Scholar
  12. Fitton, F. and Acheson, H.W.K. (1979). Doctor-Patient Relationship: A Study in General Practice. (London: HMSO)Google Scholar
  13. Fry, J. (1978). The place of primary care. In Fry, J. (ed.) Trends in General Practice 1977. ( London: Royal College of General Practitioners )Google Scholar
  14. Hockey, L. (1972). Use or Abuse - A Study of the State Enrolled Nurse in the Local Authority Nursing Services. (London: Queen’s Institute of District Nursing) Illich, I. (1974). Medical Nemesis. ( London: Calder and Boyars )Google Scholar
  15. Komoroff, A. L., Black, W. L., Flatley, M., Knopp, R. H., Reiffen, B. and Sherman H. (1974). Protocols for physician assistants. N. Engl. J. Med., 290, 307–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Last, J. M. (1963). The iceberg. Lancet, 2, 28–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lees, R. E. M. and Anderson, R. M. A. (1971). Patient attitudes to the expanded role of the nurse in family practice. Can. Med. Assoc. J., 105, 1164–1168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mahler, H. (1975). Health: a démystification of medical technology. Lancet, 2, 829–832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Marsh, G. N. (1969). Visiting nurse–analysis of one year’s work. Br. Med. J., 4, 42–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mechanic, D. (1979). Future Issues in Health Care. ( New York: Free Press )Google Scholar
  21. Moore, M. F., Barber, J.H., Robinson, E. T. and Taylor, T. R. (1973). First contact decisions in general practice - a comparison between a nurse and three general practitioners. Lancet, 1, 817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nisbet, E. (1977). Assessing the urgency of home visits. Nursing Times, September 22, 1427–1474Google Scholar
  23. Robinson, D. (1979). Self Help in Health. ( London: Mart in Robertson)Google Scholar
  24. Royal College of General Practitioners (1968). The Practice Nurse. Report from GP 16 ( London: Royal College of General Practitioners )Google Scholar
  25. Royal College of General Practitioners (1973). Present State and Future Needs of General Practice. 3rd edn. ( London: Royal College of General Practitioners )Google Scholar
  26. Smith, J. W. and Mottram, E. M. (1967). Extended use of nursing services in general practice. Br. Med. J., 4, 672–674PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, J. W. and O’Donovan, J. B. (1970). The practice nurse–a new look. Br. Med. J., 4, 673–677PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Spitzer, W., Sackett, D. L., Sibley, J. C., Roberts, R. S., Kergin, D.J., Hackett, B. C. and Oylnich, A. (1974). The Burlington Trial of the nurse practitioner. N. Engl. J. Med., 290, 251–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Townsend, P. and Wedderburn, D. (1965). The Aged in the Welfare State. ( London: Bell and Sons )Google Scholar
  30. Wallace, C. M. (1973). Assessment of the elderly by a district nursing sister ttached to a group practice. Health Bull., 31, 258–267Google Scholar
  31. Williamson, J. D. (1979). Self help and the doctor. In Hatch, S. (ed.) Mutual Aid in Health and Social Services. AR VAC Pamphlet no 1. ( London: NCVO )Google Scholar
  32. Williamson, J. D. (1980). Patient-initiated home visits in general practice. Unpublished thesis. London Faculty of Community MedicineGoogle Scholar
  33. Williamson, J. D. and Danaher, K. (1980). Self Care in Health. ( London: Croom HelmGoogle Scholar
  34. Cherrington, P. (1971). Management and the Health Services, p. 27. ( Oxford: Per-gamon Press )Google Scholar
  35. Himsworth, H. (1980). On the integration of expert knowledge into the machinery of government. Br. Med. J., 281, 1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ireland, J. A. and Power, D.J. (1979). The paediatric primary care clinical urse in South Africa. Curationis, 2, 33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Morley, D. (1973). Paediatric Priorities in the Developing World. ( Sevenoaks: But-terworths )Google Scholar
  38. Smith, J. (1981). The day hospitals organization. S. Afr. Med. J 59, 609PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Van C. de Groot, H. A., Davey, D. A., Smith, J. A. et al. (1978). The midwife bstetric unit. S. Afr. Med. J., 53, 706Google Scholar
  40. Van C. de Groot, H. A., Dommisse, J., Howland, R. C. (1981). Trends in obstetric practice at the University of Cape Town, 1967–1977. S. Afr. Med. 359, 824Google Scholar
  41. Beales G. (1978). Sick Health Centres - and How to Make Them Better. ( Tunbridge Wells: Pitman )Google Scholar
  42. Beales, G. (1981). Education for Co-operation in Health and Social Work. RCGP Occasional Paper No. 14, p. 5. ( London: Royal College of General Practitioners )Google Scholar
  43. Bloch, A. (1979). Murphy’s Law and Other Reasons Why Things go Wrong. ( London: Magnum Books )Google Scholar
  44. Bowling, A. (1981). Delegation to nurses in general practice. J. R. Coll. Gen. Practit, 31, 485Google Scholar
  45. British Medical Journal (1981) Leading article. Doctors and nurses. Br. Med J., 283 683Google Scholar
  46. Brooks, D., Hendy, A. and Parsonage, A. (1981). Towards the reality of the primary care team: an educational approach. J. R. Coll. Gen. Practit, 31, 491Google Scholar
  47. Gilmore, M., Bruce, N. and Hunt M. (1974). The Work of the Nursing Team in General Practice. ( London: Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors )Google Scholar
  48. Joint Working Group (1981). The Primary Health Care Team. Report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee. ( London: HMSO )Google Scholar
  49. Metcalfe, D. (1979). Education for Co-operation in Health and Social Work. RCGP Occasional Paper No. 14, p. 11. ( London: Royal College of General Practitioners )Google Scholar
  50. Panel of Assessors for District Nurse Training (1978). Curriculum in District Nurse Training for State Registered Nurses and Registered Nurses. ( London: PADNT )Google Scholar
  51. Reedy, B. L. E. C. (1977). The health team. In Fry, J. (ed.) Trends in General Practice. p.. 111. (London: Royal College of General Practitioners and British Medical journal) Google Scholar
  52. Reedy, B. L. E. C., Philips, P. R. and Newell, D.J. (1976). Nurses and nursing in primary medical care in England. Br. Med. j, 2, 1304Google Scholar
  53. Standing Medical Advisory Committee (1963). The Fieldwork of the Family Doctor.Report of the Subcommittee, Central Health Services Council ( London: HMSO )Google Scholar
  54. Standing Medical Advisory Committee (1971). The Organisation of Group Practice.Report of Subcommittee DHSS/ Welsh Office. ( London: HMSO )Google Scholar
  55. Update (1979) Leading article. The primary health care team. Update,19505Google Scholar

Copyright information

© MTP Press Limited 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • John D. Williamson
  • John Smith
  • David Brooks

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations