Search

This review assesses the effectiveness of integrated primary health and social care hubs on mental health outcomes for children experiencing adversity and describes common integration dimensions of effective hubs. PubMed, OVID Medline and PyschINFO databases were systematically searched for relevant articles between 2006–2020 that met the inclusion criteria: (i) interventional studies, (ii) an integrated approach to mental health within a primary health care setting, (iii) validated measures of child mental health outcomes, and (iv) in English language. Of 5961 retrieved references, four studies involving children aged 0–12 years experiencing one or more adversities were included. Most children were male (mean: 60.5%), and Hispanic or African American (82.5%). Three studies with low-moderate risk of bias reported improvements in mental health outcomes for children experiencing adversity receiving integrated care. The only RCT in this review did not show significant improvements. The most common dimensions of effective integrated hubs based on the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care were clinical integration (including case management, patient-centred care, patient education, and continuity of care), professional integration, and organisational integration including co-location. These results suggest hubs incorporating effective integration dimensions could improve mental health outcomes for children experiencing adversity; however, further robust studies are required. Registered with Prospero: CRD42020206015.

Introduction: Integrated care research often fails to adequately describe co-design methods. This article outlines the process, principles and tools to co-design an integrated health and social care Hub for families experiencing adversity. Research methods: The Child and Family Hub was co-designed in four stages: (1) partnership building and stakeholder engagement, (2) formative research, (3) persona development and (4) co-design workshops and consultations. Local families, community members and intersectoral practitioners were engaged at each stage. The co-design workshops employed a human-centred design process and were evaluated using the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PEET). Results: 121 family participants and 80 practitioners were engaged in the Hub’s co-design. The PEET highlighted the co-design team’s satisfaction achieved by community members working alongside practitioners to generate mutual learning. Resourcing was a key challenge. Discussion: Human-centred design offered a systematic process and tools for integrating formative evidence with lived and professional experience in the Hub’s co-design. Applying community engagement principles meant that a diverse range of stakeholders were engaged across all stages of the project which built trust in and local ownership of the Hub model. Conclusion: Co-design research with families experiencing adversity should attend to language, engagement methods, team composition and resourcing decisions.

Introduction: Over the past two decades, Australia’s child population has grown by 12%, yet fewer children are seen by General Practitioners (GP) (Freed, 2011) and more present to emergency departments (Freed, 2015) and hospital outpatient clinics for relatively simple conditions that could be managed in primary care. We therefore aimed to co-develop and pilot an innovative, integrated GP-paediatrician care model and test its feasibility and acceptability to GPs, families and paediatricians, across 5 Victorian (Australia) general practices. Theory/Methods: GP and paediatrician co-design of an integrated care model comprising: weekly GP-paediatrician co-consulting sessions and monthly hour-long case discussions at each practice led by GPs and facilitated by a paediatrician, and email/telephone support to GPs by paediatricians. Paediatricians recorded data on numbers of children and types of cases seen in co-consults and number and topics and number of attendees in the case discussions. We extracted data on quality of GP care for common conditions and pre/post referral patterns of GPs via GHRANITE electronic medical record data extraction software. GP and paediatrician satisfaction with model of care and family satisfaction with GP care for their child were collected via surveys. Results: After 9 months of implementation, 447 children were seen in co-consults and 27 case discussion sessions were conducted with 206 attendees. GPs report high satisfaction with the model and changes in their knowledge and confidence with paediatric care. GPs referred 9% fewer children to hospital and families reported improved confidence in thier GP's care (complete confidence from 78% to 94%) and increased first preference for followup care with a GP (65.4% to 82.8%). Discussion: A novel, integrated model of care between GPs, paediatricians and families is feasible and acceptable to GPs, general practice staff, paediatricians and families. Challenges include ensuring accurate and complete data on GP referral patterns, payment for the co-consulting sessions, and clear communication to practice staff and parents about the role of the paediatrician as a co-consultant with the GP rather than a stand-alone specialist care provider. Conclusions: Developing and embedding a GP-paediatrician model of integrated care in Australia’s primary health care system is feasible and acceptable. Pilot data suggest that the model improves GP confidence to manage paediatric care, streamlines specialist care for child developmental/behavioural problems and may reduce referrals to hospital outpatient clinics and emergency departments. Lessons learned: Intervention design must involve paediatricians, GPs, practice managers and practice administrative staff from the outset. Mutual expectations and clear roles and responsibilities of GPs and paediatricians in co-consultations must be established. Careful attention to messaging to families about the nature of co-consultations will avoid families seeking a paediatrician without a GP. Limitations: pilot study Future research: controlled trial to test the costs and effectiveness of this model in improving GP quality of care for common paediatric health conditions, reducing referrals to outpatient specialist clinics and emergency departments, improving GP confidence in paediatric care, and family satisfaction with primary care for their child.

Introduction: The aim of this paper is to report on the development of surveys to explore integration of care for children living with complex care needs across the European Union (EU) and European Economic Area (EEA). Theory and methods: Each survey consists of a vignette and questions adapted from the 'Standards for Systems of Care for Children and Youth with Special Health Care Needs and the Eurobarometer Survey'. A Country Agent in each country, a local expert in child health services, will obtain data from indigenous sources. Results: We identified ‘in-principle’ complex problems and adapted surveys to capture care integration. We expect to get rich data to understand perceptions and to inform actions for a number of complex health issues. Conclusion: The study has the potential to make a wide contribution to individual countries of the EU/EEA to understand their own integration of services mapped against responses from other member states. Early results are expected in Spring 2017.