The maturity of integrated care systems: lessons learned in using the SCIROCCO tool across Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Pavlickova ◽  
D Henderson ◽  
CA Alexandru ◽  
T Alhambra
2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Pavlickova ◽  
D Henderson ◽  
CA Alexandru ◽  
T Alhambra

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Lindner ◽  
Lutz Kubitschke ◽  
Christos Lionis ◽  
Marilena Anastasaki ◽  
Ursula Kirchmayer ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 31-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lutz Kubitschke ◽  
Ingo Meyer ◽  
Sonja Müller ◽  
Kira Stellato ◽  
Andrea Di Lenarda

The quest for more integrated care is not in itself new, but recent technology developments have nourished hopes that application of advanced digital solutions can make a major contribution to better joined-up care delivery, in particular to those suffering from chronic conditions. However, in contrast, with an enormous breadth of research activities, few instances of routine application of integrated eCare have yet emerged. This raises the question whether the concept of digitally-supported care delivery is indeed a present-day reality transforming traditionally separated care systems or just a hyped-up vision of what could be. Based on a review of recent evidence, including lessons learned from pilot implementations in different countries, the authors argue that the inherent properties of digital technologies do not by themselves lead to better-integrated care delivery. Rather, a reasonable implementation strategy needs to take account of the fact that desired end user support is not delivered by such technologies alone, but by socio-technical systems. An implementation approach that pays simultaneous attention to the stakeholders involved, to the particular working models of the different care actors, and to the technologies to be employed is shown to considerably increase the likelihood of achieving positive impacts on different levels, even if risks and uncertainty cannot be completely avoided.


2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 241-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carolyn Steele Gray ◽  
James Shaw

Purpose Models of integrated care are prime examples of complex interventions, incorporating multiple interacting components that work through varying mechanisms to impact numerous outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to explore summative, process and developmental approaches to evaluating complex interventions to determine how to best test this mess. Design/methodology/approach This viewpoint draws on the evaluation and complex intervention literatures to describe the advantages and disadvantages of different methods. The evaluation of the electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) mobile application and portal system is presented as an example of how to evaluate complex interventions with critical lessons learned from this ongoing study. Findings Although favored in the literature, summative and process evaluations rest on two problematic assumptions: it is possible to clearly identify stable mechanisms of action; and intervention fidelity can be maximized in order to control for contextual influences. Complex interventions continually adapt to local contexts, making stability and fidelity unlikely. Developmental evaluation, which is more conceptually aligned with service-design thinking, moves beyond these assumptions, emphasizing supportive adaptation to ensure meaningful adoption. Research limitations/implications Blended approaches that incorporate service-design thinking and rely more heavily on developmental strategies are essential for complex interventions. To maximize the benefit of this approach, three guiding principles are suggested: stress pragmatism over stringency; adopt an implementation lens; and use multi-disciplinary teams to run studies. Originality/value This viewpoint offers novel thinking on the debate around appropriate evaluation methodologies to be applied to complex interventions like models of integrated care.


2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carme Hernandez ◽  
Albert Alonso ◽  
Judith Garcia-Aymerich ◽  
Anders Grimsmo ◽  
Theodore Vontetsianos ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Joshua W. Thompson ◽  
Alice O'Brien ◽  
Anna Stewart ◽  
Rob Hurd ◽  
Fares S Haddad

Health service innovation is required to meet the ever-growing demands of modern medicine. This editorial discusses the transformation of the north central London elective orthopaedic network and the essential principles which future integrated care systems could incorporate.


2020 ◽  
Vol 163 (4) ◽  
pp. 705-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Taher S. Valika ◽  
Kathleen R. Billings

The rapidly changing health care climate related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in numerous changes to health care systems and in practices that protect both the public and the workers who serve in hospitals around the country. As a result, these past few months have seen a drastic reduction in outpatient visits. With phased reopening and appropriate guidance, health care systems are attempting to return to normal. The experiences and lessons learned are described, and we provide guiding principles to allow for a safe and effective return to outpatient care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 723-737
Author(s):  
Andrew Fletcher ◽  
Jeremy Clarke

AbstractEpistemic injustice has rapidly become a powerful tool for analysis of otherwise hidden social harms. Yet empirical research into how resistance to knowing and understanding can be generated and replicated in social programmes is limited. We have identified a range of subtle and not-so-subtle inflections of epistemic injustice as they play out in an intervention for people with chronic depression in receipt of disability benefits. This article describes the different ‘species’ of epistemic injustice observed and reveals how these are unintentionally produced at frontline, management, commissioning and policy levels. Most notably, there remains a privileging of clinical knowledge over other forms of knowledge, producing a ‘pathocentric epistemic complex’. This, combined with the failure of different agencies with competing ideologies to adequately understand each other, and a vicious policy context, added to the injustices already faced by people with mental health issues, generating multiple harms. This has important implications for a range of integrated care and welfare interventions – not least by drawing attention to their unintended potential for replicating epistemic injustice as an institutionalised complex. Careful evaluation and design of such programmes, applying the philosophical and epistemic resources illustrated here, can help mitigate this outcome. Further, by raising awareness of epistemic injustice among programme participants, we can generate epistemic structures that secure programme integrity locally, and promote better policy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document