Search

Background: Countries are adapting their health and social care systems to better meet the needs of growing populations with (multiple) chronic conditions. To guide this process, assessment of the 'patient experience' is becoming increasingly important. For this purpose, the Person‐Centred Coordinated Care Experience Questionnaire (P3CEQ) was developed in the United Kingdom, and translated into several languages. Aim: This study aimed to assess the internal and construct validity of the Dutch P3CEQ to capture the experience of person‐centred coordinated care of people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Participants and Methods: Adults with chronic conditions (N = 1098) completed the Dutch P3CEQ, measures of health literacy and patient activation, and reported the use and perceived quality of care services. Data analysis included Principal Component and reliability analysis (internal validity), analysis of variance and Student's T‐tests (construct validity). Results: The two‐component structure found was pretty much the same as in the UK validation study. Sociodemographic correlates also resembled those found in the United Kingdom. Women, persons who were less educated, less health‐literate or less activated experienced less person‐centred coordinated care. P3CEQ scores correlated positively with general practitioner performance scores and quality ratings of the total care received. Conclusion: The Dutch P3CEQ is a valid instrument to assess the experience of person‐centred coordinated care among people with chronic conditions in the Netherlands. Awareness of inequity and more attention to communication skills in professional training are needed to ensure that care professionals better recognize the needs of women, lower educated or less health‐literate persons, and improve their experiences of care. Patient Contribution: The P3CEQ has been developed in collaboration with a range of stakeholders. Eighteen persons with (multiple) chronic conditions participated as patient representatives and codesign experts in (four) codesign workshops. Other patient representatives participated in cognitive testing of the English‐language instrument. The usability of the P3CEQ to capture the experience of person‐centred coordinated care of older persons has been examined by interviewing 228 older European service users, including 13 living in the Netherlands, as part of the SUSTAIN project. More than a thousand persons with chronic conditions participated in the validation study of the Dutch P3CEQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frail older people face a range of problems and risks that could undermine their ability to live safely at home. A comprehensive overview of these risks, from a multidimensional perspective, is currently lacking. This study aims to examine the prevalence of risks in multiple domains of life among frail older people living at home. We used cross‐sectional data from 824 people aged 65 years and older, who received a comprehensive geriatric assessment (the interRAI Home Care [interRAI‐HC]) between 2014 and 2018, as part of routine care from 25 general practices in the region of West‐Friesland, the Netherlands. The interRAI‐HC identifies amenable risks related to people's clinical conditions, functioning, lifestyle and behaviour, and social and physical environment. Descriptive statistics were used to examine population characteristics (age, gender, marital status, living arrangements and presence of chronic conditions) and prevalence of risks. Most common risks were related to people's clinical conditions (i.e cardio‐respiratory health, urinary incontinence, pain), functioning (i.e. limitations in instrumental activities of daily living and mood) and social environment (i.e. limitations in informal care and social functioning). More than 80% of frail older people faced multiple risks, and often on multiple domains of life simultaneously. People experiencing multiple risks per person, and on multiple domains simultaneously, were more often widowed and living alone. The multidimensional character of risks among frail older people living at home implies that an integrated approach to care, comprising both health and social care, is necessary. Insight in the prevalence of these risks can give direction to care allocation decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Although person-centredness is a key principle of integrated care, successfully embedding and improving person-centred care for older people remains a challenge. In the context of a cross- European project on integrated care for older people living at home, the objective of this paper is to provide insight at an overarching level, into activities aimed at improving person-centredness within the participating integrated care sites. The paper describes experiences with these activities from the service providers' and service users' perspectives. Methods: A multiple embedded case study design was conducted that included thirteen integrated care sites for older people living at home. Results: Service providers were positive about the activities that aimed to promote person-centred care and thought that most activities (e.g. comprehensive needs assessment) positively influenced personcentredness. Experiences of service users were mixed. For some activities (e.g. enablement services), discrepancies were identified between the views of service providers and those of service users. Discussion and conclusion: Evaluating activities aimed at promoting person-centredness from both the service providers' and service users' perspectives showed that not all efforts were successful or had the intended consequences for older people. Involvement of older people in designing improvement activities could ensure that care and support reflect their needs and preferences, and build positive experiences of care and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many initiatives integrating health and social care have been implemented in order to provide adequate care and support to older people living at home. Further development of existing initiatives requires iterative processes of developing, implementing and evaluating improvements to current practice. This case study provides insight into the process of improving an existing integrated care initiative in the Netherlands. Using a participatory approach, researchers and local stakeholders collaborated to develop and implement activities to further improve collaboration between health and social care professionals. Improvement activities included interprofessional meetings focussing on reflection and mutual learning and workplace visits. Researchers evaluated the improvement process, using data triangulation of multiple qualitative and quantitative data sources. According to participating professionals, the improvement activities improved their communication and collaboration by establishing mutual understanding and trust. Enabling factors included the safe and informal setting in which the meetings took place and the personal relationships they developed during the project. Different organisational cultures and interests and a lack of ownership and accountability among managers hindered the improvement process, whereas issues such as staff shortages, time constraints and privacy regulations made it difficult to implement improvements on a larger scale. Still, the participatory approach encouraged the development of partnerships and shared goals on the level of both managers and professionals. This case study highlights that improving communication between professionals is an important first step in improving integrated care. In addition, it shows that a participatory approach, in which improvements are co‐created and tailored to local priorities and needs, can help in the development of shared goals and trust between stakeholders with different perspectives. However, stakeholders' willingness and ability to participate in such an improvement process is challenged by many factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many integrated care programs, a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is conducted to identify older people's problems and care needs. Different ways for conducting a CGA are in place. However, it is still unclear which CGA instruments and procedures for conducting them are used in integrated care programs, and what distinguishes them from each other. Furthermore, it is yet unknown how and to what extent CGAs, as a component of integrated care programs, actually reflect the main principles of integrated care, being comprehensiveness, multidisciplinarity and person‐centredness. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: (a) describe and compare different CGA instruments and procedures conducted within integrated care programs for older people living at home, and (b) describe how the principles of integrated care were applied in these CGAs. A scoping review of the scientific literature on CGAs in the context of integrated care was conducted for the period 2006–2018. Data were extracted on main characteristics of the identified CGA instruments and procedures, and on how principles of integrated care were applied in these CGAs. Twenty‐seven integrated care programs were included in this study, of which most were implemented in the Netherlands and the United States. Twenty‐one different CGAs were identified, of which the EASYcare instrument, RAI‐HC/RAI‐CHA and GRACE tool were used in multiple programs. The majority of CGAs seemed to reflect comprehensiveness, multidisciplinarity and person‐centredness, although the way and extent to which principles of integrated care were incorporated differed between the CGAs. This study highlights the high variability of CGA instruments and procedures used in integrated care programs. This overview of available CGAs and their characteristics may promote (inter‐)national exchange of CGAs, which could enable researchers and professionals in choosing from the wide range of existing CGAs, thereby preventing them from unnecessarily reinventing the wheel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Integrated care programmes are increasingly being put in place to provide care to older people who live at home. Knowledge of how to further develop integrated care and how to transfer successful initiatives to other contexts is still limited. Therefore, a cross-European research project, called Sustainable Tailored Integrated Care for Older People in Europe (SUSTAIN), has been initiated with a twofold objective: 1. to collaborate with local stakeholders to support and monitor improvements to established integrated care initiatives for older people with multiple health and social care needs. Improvements focus on person-centredness, prevention orientation, safety and efficiency; 2. to make these improvements applicable and adaptable to other health and social care systems, and regions in Europe. This paper presents the overall structure and approach of the SUSTAIN project. Methods: SUSTAIN uses a multiple embedded case study design. In three phases, SUSTAIN partners: (i) conduct interviews and workshops with stakeholders from fourteen established integrated care initiatives to understand where they would prefer improvements to existing ways of working; (ii) collaborate with local stakeholders to support the design and implementation of improvement plans, evaluate implementation progress and outcomes per initiative, and carry out overarching analyses to compare the different initiatives, and; (iii) translate knowledge and experience to an online roadmap. Discussion: SUSTAIN aims to generate evidence on how to improve integrated care, and apply and transfer the knowledge gained to other health and social care systems, and regions. Lessons learned will be brought together in practical tools to inform and support policy-makers and decision-makers, as well as other stakeholders involved in integrated care, to manage and improve care for older people living at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Accumulation of problems in physical, psychological, cognitive, or social functioning is characteristic for frail individuals. Using a four-domain approach of frailty, this study explored how sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, life events and health are associated with frailty.Methods: The study sample included 4019 men and women (aged 40-81 years) examined during the fifth round (2008-2012) of the Doetinchem Cohort Study. Four domains of frailty were considered: physical (≥4 of 8 criteria: unintentional weight loss, exhaustion, strength, perceived health, walking, balance, hearing and vision impairments), psychological (2 criteria: depressive symptoms, mental health), cognitive (<10th percentile on global cognitive functioning), and social frailty (≥2 of 3 criteria: loneliness, social support, social participation). Logistic regression was used to study the cross-sectional association of sociodemographic factors, lifestyle, life events and chronic diseases with frailty domains.Results: About 17% of the population was frail on one or more domains. Overlap between the frailty domains was limited since 82% of the frail population was frail on one domain only. Low educated respondents were at higher risk of being psychologically and socially frail. Having multiple diseases was associated with a higher risk of being physically and psychologically frail. Being physically active was consistently associated with a lower risk of frailty on each of the four domains. Short or long sleep duration was associated with a higher risk of being physically, psychologically, and socially frail.Conclusions: Sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and multimorbidity contributed differently to the four frailty domains. It is important to consider multiple frailty domains since this helps to identify different groups of frail people, and as such to provide tailored care and support. Lifestyle factors including physical activity, smoking and sleep duration were associated with multiple domains of frailty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A wide range of initiatives on early detection and intervention have been developed to proactively identify problems related to health and wellbeing in (frail) older people, with the aim of supporting them to live independently for as long as possible. Nevertheless, it remains unclear what the best way is to design such initiatives and how older people's needs and preferences can be best addressed. This study aimed to address this gap in the literature by exploring: 1) older people's perspectives on health and living environment in relation to living independently at home; 2) older people's needs and preferences in relation to initiating and receiving care and support; and 3) professionals' views on what would be necessary to enable the alignment of early detection initiatives with older people's own needs and preferences.Methods: In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 36 older people and 19 professionals in proactive elderly care. Data were analysed using the framework analysis method.Results: From the interviews with older people important themes in relation to health and living environment emerged, such as maintaining independence, appropriate housing, social relationships, a supporting network and a sense of purpose and autonomy. Older people preferred to remain self-sufficient, and they would rather not ask for help for psychological or social problems. However, the interviews also highlighted that they were not always able or willing to anticipate future needs, which can hinder early detection or early intervention. At the same time, professionals indicated that older people tend to over-estimate their self-reliance and therefore advocated for early detection and intervention, including social and psychological issues.Conclusion: Older people have a broad range of needs in different domains of life. Discrepancies exist between older people and professionals with regard to their views on timing and scope of early detection initiatives. This study aimed to reveal starting-points for better alignment between initiatives and older people's needs and preferences. Such starting points may support policy makers and care professionals involved in early detection initiatives to make more informed decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last years, several initiatives on early detection and intervention have been put in place to proactively identify health and social problems in (frail) older people. An overview of the initiatives currently available in the Netherlands is lacking, and it is unknown whether they meet the preferences and needs of older people. Therefore, the objectives of this study were threefold: 1. To identify initiatives on early detection and intervention for older people in the Netherlands and compare their characteristics; 2. To explore the experiences of professionals with these initiatives; and 3. To explore to what extent existing initiatives meet the preferences and needs of older people.Methods: We performed a qualitative descriptive study in which we conducted semi-structured interviews with seventeen experts in preventive elderly care and three group interviews with volunteer elderly advisors. Data were analysed using the framework analysis method.Results: We identified eight categories of initiatives based on the setting (e.g. general practitioner practice, hospital, municipality) in which they were offered. Initiatives differed in their aims and target groups. The utilization of peers to identify problems and risks, as was done by some initiatives, was seen as a strength. Difficulties were experienced with identifying the target group that would benefit from proactive delivery of care and support most, and with addressing prevalent issues among older people (e.g. psychosocial issues, self-reliance issues).Conclusion: Although there is a broad array of initiatives available, there is a discrepancy between supply and demand. Current initiatives insufficiently address needs of (frail) older people. More insight is needed in "what should be done by whom, for which target group and at what moment", in order to improve current practice in preventive elderly care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The topic of patient safety, which is traditionally viewed as preventing harm stemming from healthcare treatment, has been extensively researched in hospital and institutional settings. However, less attention has been given to addressing safety at home even though an increasing number of older people receive care and support at home, for example through integrated care programs. Care provided in the context of integrated programs for older people living at home differs from care in institutional settings in that it takes place in less controlled environments and often involves multiple health and social care providers as well as informal caregivers. Knowledge on safety in relation to integrated care is scarce. Therefore, this review aims to provide insight into how safety is currently being addressed in integrated care programs for older people living at home. Methods: This review adopted a multidimensionalperspective on safety, operationalised as reducing health risks by preventing predictable harm. These risks exist in various domains (e.g. patient characteristics and behaviour, patients' physical or social environments, health and social care delivery). Papers describing integrated care programs where at least one intervention component explicitly aimed at safety were included in the review. Data were extracted on the safety components of the interventions and the domains they focused on. Results: Ten integrated care programs were included in the review. The extent to which these programs addressed safety varied. Programs addressed risks related to patient characteristics and behaviour (e.g. falls, substance abuse, medication adherence), or health and social care management (e.g. polypharmacy, care transitions). Several tools and interventions were used to promote safety, such as needs assessments, evidence based care plans, medication reviews and case management methods. There was generally less attention to risks related to patients' physical and social environment, although one program specifically addressed home safety by providing a handyman. Discussion: The identified programstarget a variety of safety risks at different domains, and they differ in the extent to which safety is addressed from a multidimensional perspective. Currently, attention to safety is primarily focused on risks related to health care management and patient characteristics and behaviour, while risks related to people's physical and social environments are less often addressed. Additional interventions, targeting specific safety risks, could be incorporated in integrated care programs in order to address safety more comprehensively. Conclusions and lessons learned: Only a few of the many integrated care programs for older people at home that are described in literature explicitly address safety. Within these programs, more attention is needed for the risks related to people's physical and social environments. Limitations: Our review only included programs that explicitly addressed safety, as documented in the research literature. Therefore, we may have missed some programs that addressed safety if this was not clearly described in the literature. Suggestions for future research: Future research might focus on the effects of integrated care programs on the multiple domains of safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the northwest of the Netherlands, health and social care professionals have sought to structure and coordinate care and support for older people living at home with multiple health and social care needs. The region was selected as one of the case sites of a European project called SUSTAIN, which aimed to facilitate and evaluate improvements to established integrated care initiatives for older people living at home. By participating in the SUSTAIN project, local stakeholders collaborated with researchers to further improve their way of working. This case study describes the process and outcomes of the development and implementation of improvements, as well as the factors that influenced this improvement process. Insight into this process may provide valuable lessons that could be transferable to other integrated care initiatives Methods: Using a participatory approach, guided by the Evidence Integration Triangle (Glasgow, 2012), local stakeholders defined and implemented a tailored intervention aimed at improving collaboration and communication between health and social care professionals. Researchers monitored and evaluated this improvement process. Multiple data sources were used, including the Team Climate Inventory (n=11), interviews with managers and professionals delivering health and social care (n=8), meeting minutes (n=10) and field notes. Results and Discussion: The tailored intervention consisted of regular intervision meetings (i.e. meetings consisting of peer supervision and methodical discussion to reflect on professional development) as well as workplace visits. According to professionals, the intervention resulted in improved communication and collaboration. Facilitating factors included the safe and informal setting in which the meetings took place and the personal relationships that developed during the project. Managers also valued the intervention, although they voiced concerns about the scale and sustainability of the implementation. Issues such as staff shortages, time constraints and privacy regulations made it difficult to implement the intervention on a larger scale. In addition, lack of ownership and accountability among managers and different organizational cultures and interests hindered the improvement process. Still, this bottom-up participatory approach encouraged the development of trust, shared goals and a shared sense of urgency on the level of both managers and professionals. Conclusions: A shared sense of urgency, personal relationships and trust on different organisational levels were important factors facilitating the improvement of an established integrated care initiative in the Netherlands. Lessons Learned: This case study highlights that participatory approaches, in which interventions are co-created and tailored to local priorities and needs, can help in the development of shared goals and trust between stakeholders with competing interests. Limitations: Our study sample is relatively smalldue to the limited number of participating stakeholders. Still, similar patterns were found in the different data sources. In addition, given the relatively short implementation period, we were not able to assess whether the improvement impacted older people's experiences with care and support. Suggestions for further research: Further research may focus on the sustainability of improvements to established integrated care initiatives, and look into possibilities to scale up these improvement activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Older people living at home may experience problems in the physical, cognitive, psychological, social and/or environmental life domains, leading to complex care needs. Integration of health and social care is widely acknowledged as an adequate way to address these complex needs. An important component of integrated care programs is a comprehensive geriatric assessment CGA which helps to identify older people's care needs and preferences. A CGA provides the basis for a tailored care plan, consisting of specific actions to support older people in their homes. In the wide range of integrated care programs for frail older people, different CGA tools are being used. To the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive overview of the characteristics of the different CGA tools is currently lacking. The aim of our study was therefore to describe and compare different CGA tools and procedures for conducting them. Methods: A systematic literature search in the electronic databases Embase/Medline and Scopus was conducted to search for papers describing CGAs in integrated care programs for older people living at home. Our search yielded 814 potentially relevant publications. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility based on title and abstract and full text screening. In total, 26 integrated care programs were included in our review. The identified integrated care programs were reviewed as to their main characteristics: country, program objective, target group, setting and involved professionals. Data extraction for information about the CGAs included: CGA tool/instruments, comprehensiveness i.e. life domains being addressed, multidisciplinarity i.e. extent to which professionals from different disciplines are involved, person-centredness i.e. extent to which older people and informal carers are involved and procedures to conduct a CGA. Results: Included studies shows a great variety of CGAs used in integrated care programs. Most integrated care programs were implemented in the Netherlands and the United States. The majority of CGAs seemed to address comprehensiveness, multidisciplinarity and personcentredness, although the way and extent to which principles of integrated care were incorporated differed between the CGAs. Furthermore, some identified instruments are broadly used in different countries e.g. RAI-CHA, whereas others e.g. [G]OLD instrument are developed and used exclusively in one specific program. Discussion/conclusion: This study shows that integrated care programs, in different settings and for different target groups, have different ways of conducting a CGA. Due to this heterogeneity, older people's needs and preferences are being assessed and addressed in different ways. It is still unclear what works best in conducting a CGA in the context of integrated care and whether the existing range of CGAs is adequate. Limitations/suggestions for future research: We did not include the entire range of existing CGAs in this review, as several papers did not adequately describe the CGA tool and procedures used. A more thorough description of CGAs as a component of an integrated care program is recommended to complement the current overview of CGAs. Further research is recommended to develop guidance on how older people's problems and care needs should best be assessed and to prevent researchers and professionals from reinventing the wheel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Numerous integrated care initiatives have been rolled out in a wide range of settings and contexts, in order to improve care and support for frail older people living at home. Despite this rich and varied field of practical examples, evidence on the effectiveness of integrated care remains inconsistent and knowledge on successful implementation and transferability of experiences to other contexts is still limited. To take a step forward in the development of integrated care, the cross-European research project called SUSTAIN was initiated in 2015, with a two-fold objective: 1. to support and monitor improvements to established integrated care initiatives for older people living at home, and 2. to identify improvements that could be applicable and adaptable to other health and social care systems and regions in Europe. Over the past two years, local stakeholders from thirteen existing integrated care initiatives in seven European countries have worked together with SUSTAIN project partners to improve their current way of working. Supported by SUSTAIN project partners, stakeholders from the different initiatives (i.e. managers, health and social care professionals, representatives of older people and informal carers, local policy officers) designed and implemented improvement plans tailored to local priorities. Using a multiple case study design, SUSTAIN project partners monitored and evaluated experiences and outcomes related to the design and implementation of these improvements in each initiative (or 'case'). Comparing and integrating data from these different cases provides insight into what works for whom and in which context. Aims and objectives: During this workshop, we will share lessons learned so far from the implementation and evaluation of the improvement projects in the SUSTAIN project. The aim of the workshop is threefold: 1. inform the audience about the objectives and design of the SUSTAIN project, 2. illustrate outcomes and experiences related to designing and implementing improvements in three of the participating integrated care initiatives, and 3. present preliminary findings from the integration of outcomes and experiences of all participating initiatives. Format: During the first presentation, we will briefly show SUSTAIN's overall structure, approach and activities to generate evidence on improving integrated care. During the second, third and fourth presentation we will share experiences from participating integrated care initiatives located in West-Friesland (the Netherlands), the Arnhem region (the Netherlands) and Sabadell (Spain). The fifth presentation will focus on preliminary findings based on overarching analyses of experiences from all initiatives. After the presentations, we will discuss with the audience how lessons learned during the SUSTAIN project can bring the development of integrated care further. Target audience: This workshop is targeted at researchers and decision-makers who want to know more about improving established integrated care initiatives. Learnings: After this session, participants will have insight in: 1. the objectives and design of the SUSTAIN project, 2. case-specific experiences and outcomes related to improving integrated care, and 3. preliminary outcomes of the overarching analyses which supports the understanding of what works for whom, in which context and with what outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Innovative process improvements in integrated care programs are increasingly implemented in daily practice by improving certain service elements e.g. safety, personcenteredness, or patient selection to achieve program sustainability and/or program upscaling. Because of the often complex nature of these initiatives, it is challenging to prove effectiveness. We use evidence-based methods from implementation research to monitor and to evaluate integrated care programs during process improvement actions, and to understand if and how implemented actions affect the program in an operational setting. In implementation research, it is important to consider all aspects of the implementation of the program, including the context in which it is being implemented, perspectives of all relevant stakeholders in particular the end users, as well as the organizational processes around the programs. Implementation research also promotes the systematic application of research findings in practice Peters et al 2013. The projects Advancing Care Coordination and Telehealth deployment at Scale ACT@Scale1, Sustainable Tailored Integrated Care for Older People in Europe SUSTAIN2, and DementiaNet3 all apply participatory approaches where local stakeholders design and implement local improvements. The projects all use cyclic improvement processes with the ambition to achieve rapid flow of evidence to practice and to disseminate knowledge and good practices at national and European level. The projects cover a wide variety of integrated care programs running in different settings, having different target populations e.g., chronically ill, multi-morbid, frail elderly, and mental health, and implement different improvement actions. Despite these differences, many common denominators exist, which will be elaborated in this session. Aims and objectives: The overall aim of this session is to provide an overview of implementation research methodologies and to provide examples how to implement and evaluate quality improvement actions in integrated care. Each project will present their experiences with and preliminary results of applying participatory approaches in clinical daily practice, covering different contexts and populations. Common denominators and differences will be discussed. In the discussion part, generalisability of these experiences for other European projects on integrated care will be highlighted. Format timing, speakers, discussion, group work, etc: During the session, the different participatory approaches applied in ACT@Scale, SUSTAIN and DementiaNet will be presented. The authors will further share their experiences applying the participatory approach, using concrete examples and results from actual program improvement actions. After the presentations, common lessons learned in the projects will be identified and discussed with the audience. Target Audience: This workshop targets all stakeholders from clinical management and researcher background who are involved or interested in integrated care improvement methods. Sharing of your own experiences in the open discussion is an integral part of this session. Learnings / Take away: After this session, participants will: 1. have insight in different implementation research approaches for improvement processes in integrated care; 2. will be informed about how to apply these methods and what the pros, cons, barriers and enablers are; and 3. Gain ideas on how to translate and apply lessons learned to their own practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]