Search

Introduction: Network platforms are interesting for integrated care governance as they seek solutions for the problem of competition and tensions between networks. In this paper, we analyse how a network platform functions for the actors involved, and how it is used in their work. Methods: We employed a case study in a Dutch urbanised hospital region, and conducted 17 interviews with hospital physicians, directors, and supporting staff who are involved in a network platform called “BeterKeten” (BK). Results: Actors assign different functions and purposes to BK: facilitating and legitimising professional (learning) communities; adapting to a changing policy context; enlarging professionals’ and the networks’ circle of influence; and extending governing possibilities. Network platform’ dynamics and frictions entail changing professional and managerial practices; embedding a BK network in a partner network; and alignment of (conflicting) network platforms. Discussion: Network platforms are a promising strategy to govern, facilitate, and nurture network-building actions to enhance integrated care, offering new ways of working to cope with its multi-level nature. Conclusion: BK is a dynamic actor with steering capacities that enables the co-existence of multiple purposes. Further research could pay attention to how network platforms are able to develop modalities of integrated care governance that suit healthcare system’s networked character.

Introduction: Network platforms are interesting for integrated care governance as they seek solutions for the problem of competition and tensions between networks. In this paper, we analyse how a network platform functions for the actors involved, and how it is used in their work. Methods: We employed a case study in a Dutch urbanised hospital region, and conducted 17 interviews with hospital physicians, directors, and supporting staff who are involved in a network platform called “BeterKeten” (BK). Results: Actors assign different functions and purposes to BK: facilitating and legitimising professional (learning) communities; adapting to a changing policy context; enlarging professionals’ and the networks’ circle of influence; and extending governing possibilities. Network platform’ dynamics and frictions entail changing professional and managerial practices; embedding a BK network in a partner network; and alignment of (conflicting) network platforms. Discussion: Network platforms are a promising strategy to govern, facilitate, and nurture network-building actions to enhance integrated care, offering new ways of working to cope with its multi-level nature. Conclusion: BK is a dynamic actor with steering capacities that enables the coexistence of multiple purposes. Further research could pay attention to how network platforms are able to develop modalities of integrated care governance that suit healthcare system’s networked character. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]