Search

Introduction: Discussions of integrated care have ranged in focus from large-scale health system transformations, to discrete interventions intended to enhance local continuity of care. Beyond these variations in scale and focus, literature on integrated care has used a variety of conceptual frameworks to explain various activities and elements necessary to achieve integrated care. Existing frameworks have helped to advance research and practice; yet the complexity of changing practice required to achieve integrated care across the policy, organizational, and clinical levels complicates efforts to represent or implement these innovations in straightforward ways. Aims Objectives Theory or Methods: In this paper, we present a novel strategy for conceptualizing integrated care as developing through a series of milestones observable at the organizational level. Based on analysis of four integrated care organizational case studies in Canada and New Zealand, we outline how this approach to conceptualizing integrated care both resolves the tension of crossing the macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis, and generates new practical insights to guide policy and practice. Methods consist of qualitative interviews, observation, and document analysis across cases, and qualitative data were analyzed temporally to identify milestones as indicated by participants over time. Highlights or Results or Key Findings: We define a milestone as the occurrence of a salient event that is perceived by respondents to facilitate or disrupt efforts towards the development of integrated care. We synthesize these events at the organizational level, suggesting that the organizational level of analysis is the most appropriate level to represent the significance of these milestones. Our analysis identified six categories of milestone: (1) Strategic relational milestones, referring to building relationships between stakeholders. (2) Strategic process change milestones, referring to efforts to improve quality in practice. (3) Structural (intra-organizational) milestones, referring to changes in organizational structure. (4) Structural (inter-organizational) milestones, referring to changes in the legal, operational, or leadership structures that facilitate relationships between organizations. (5) Environmental milestones, referring to changes in the social or natural environment. (6) Political milestones, referring to changes in the control and allocation of resources. Conclusions: Our results generate a new conceptual framework for understanding the achievement of integrated care as occurring through a series of milestones. This approach enhances the focus on achieving integrated care "in the wild", in the actual environments in which leaders, clinicians, policymakers, patients, and caregivers work to implement integrated care. Implications for applicability/transferability sustainability and limitations: Our model emphasizes two practical points. First, that there is no single series of sequential steps that must be taken to achieve integrated care. Second, that policy efforts to support integrated care ought to encourage organizations and their collaborators to work toward milestones that facilitate the development of integrated care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: International and national bodies promote interdisciplinary care in the management of people with chronic conditions. We examine one facilitative factor in this team-based approach - the co-location of non-physician disciplines within the primary care practice. Methods: We used survey data from 330 General Practices in Ontario, Canada and New Zealand, as a part of a multinational study using The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) surveys. Logistic and linear multivariable regression models were employed to examine the association between the number of disciplines working within the practice, and the capacity of the practice to offer specialized and preventive care for patients with chronic conditions. Results: We found that as the number of non-physicians increased, so did the availability of special sessions/clinics for patients with diabetes (odds ratio 1.43, 1.25-1.65), hypertension (1.20, 1.03-1.39), and the elderly (1.22, 1.05-1.42). Co-location was also associated with the provision of disease management programs for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and asthma; the equipment available in the centre; and the extent of nursing services. Conclusions: The care of people with chronic disease is the 'challenge of the century'. Co-location of practitioners may improve access to services and equipment that aid chronic disease management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]