Comparison of the viewpoint groups among professionals of perioperative setting in prioritization of antecedents of the interdisciplinary collaboration using modified q-methodology

Background: Continued concerns for improvements in safety and quality of the perioperative setting (PS) process and outcomes drive the efforts in improving the interdisciplinary collaboration (IC) to match or supplant the change brought by innovation with better reflexivity through planning. PS professionals routinely engaged in surgery and recovery hold the prime insights into the active process of ICPS and are best capacitated to articulate their perspectives and priorities. Purpose: The purpose of this research was to describe the patterns of ICPS factor prioritization within the interdisciplinary team (IDT). The questions guiding this research were: 1. What antecedents of IC are considered by IDT professionals to be important in PS? 2. What viewpoints and potential contentions exist in prioritizations of IC improvements? We have utilized a modified Q-methodological approach to assess the subjective viewpoints within IDT professionals. Materials and Methods: This research is based on mixed-methods survey design with modified Q-methodology adapted for utilization in a statistical platform, such as SPSS. Qualitative theme extraction from literature review (LR) was utilized in selection ICPS factors for inclusion into the concourse of statements, which from the Q-sample was induced. ICPS factor Q-sort was obtained from participant responses in 12x12 prioritization matrix built into a survey in REDCap. The viewpoint groups were then identified with factor analysis of the rotated (rows-columns) matrix and subjected to further analysis of concordances and discordances. Results: Five primary factors of ICPS as identified by IDT members include: Critical Communication and Feedback (CCF), Purpose, Team Technical Competence (TTC), Trust, and Adaptability. Cumulative 94.672 % of variance was explained with eight viewpoint groups with eigan values greater than 1.0. and factor loadings greater than 0.30 in the Q-FA model. Eight viewpoint groups included: Technocratic, Polarized-reflexive-visionary, Collegial, Communicator, Focused on Critical Process, Power-Observant (conscious of power dynamics), and Task-Oriented. The ninth viewpoint group included Absolutist viewpoints (16.67% of P-set). Conclusions: In this study, we were able to identify the primary factors important in improving ICPS and the viewpoint groups and patterns using modified Q-methodologic approach. Identification of potential sources of contention and dispute are necessary for IDT reflexivity and adaptability in innovative environment of PS.