Qualitative study identifies informal leadership roles in primary care teams, suggesting GPs can enhance collaboration.
Abstract Background The growing number of frail older adults in the Netherlands necessitates robust interprofessional collaboration in primary care to ensure person-centred, high-quality care. In non-managed primary care teams, strong leadership is essential to support team development, coordination, and decision-making. However, there is a lack of clarity about appropriate leadership approaches and the role of the general practitioner (GP) in such teams. This study aims to explore relevant leadership theories and examine the role of the GP in fostering interprofessional collaboration in primary care teams serving frail older adults. Methods A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with ten healthcare leadership experts. The data were analysed thematically using an inductive approach to identify key elements of leadership in interprofessional primary care settings. Results The study found that non-managed interprofessional primary care teams require informal leadership, which is captured in the proposed Framework for Informal Leadership in Primary Care (FIL-PC). This framework comprises four key leadership roles—initiator, visionary, tutor, and overseer—that together support effective collaboration, shared responsibility, and ongoing learning. While GPs are well-positioned to take on these leadership roles, they may not yet fully recognize or embrace this potential. Conclusion Informal leadership is crucial for effective interprofessional collaboration in non-managed primary care teams. The FIL-PC offers practical insights into necessary leadership behaviours and can guide teams in improving collaboration. Future research should investigate the framework’s feasibility and explore educational strategies to support its implementation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Merx et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: