Assessing progress in managing and improving quality in nascent integrated care systems in England.

OBJECTIVES: In 2022, England embarked on an ambitious reorganisation to produce an integrated health and care system, intended also to maximise population health. The newly created integrated care systems (ICSs) aim to improve quality of care, by achieving the best outcomes for individuals and populations through the provision of evidence-based services. An emerging approach for managing quality in organisations is the Quality Management System (QMS) framework. Using the framework, this study assessed how ICSs are managing and improving quality. METHODS: Four ICSs were purposively sampled, with the data collected between November 2021 and May 2022. Semi-structured interviews with system leaders (n=60) from health and social care, public health and local representatives were held. We also observed key ICS meetings and reviewed relevant documents. A thematic framework approach based on the QMS framework was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The ICSs placed an emphasis on population health, reducing inequity and improving access. This represents a shift in focus from the traditional clinical approach to quality. There were tensions between quality assurance and improvement, with concerns that a narrow focus on assurance would impede ICSs from addressing broader quality issues, such as tackling inequalities and unwarranted variation in care and outcomes. Partnerships, a key enabler for integration, was seen as integral to achieving improvements in quality. Overall, the ICSs expressed concerns that any progress made in quality development and in improving population health would be tempered by unprecedented system pressures. CONCLUSION: It is unclear whether ICSs can achieve their ambition. As they move away from an assurance-dominated model of quality to one that emphasises openness, learning and improvement, they must simultaneously build the digital infrastructure, staff expertise and culture to support such a shift.

Measuring the benefits of the integration of health and social care: qualitative interviews with professional stakeholders and patient representatives.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care has the potential to ease the increasing pressures faced by health and social care systems, however, challenges around measuring the benefits for providers, patients, and service users remain. This paper explores stakeholders' views on the benefits of integrated care and approaches to measuring the integration of health and social care. METHODS: Twenty-five semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with professional stakeholders (n = 19) and patient representatives (n = 6). Interviews focused on the benefits of integrated care and how it should be evaluated. Data was analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Three overarching themes emerged from the data: (1) integrated care and its benefits, with stakeholders defining it primarily from the patient's perspective; (2) potential measures for assessing the benefits of integration in terms of system effects, patient experiences, and patient outcomes; and (3) broader considerations around the assessment of integrated care, including the use of qualitative methods. CONCLUSIONS: There was consensus among stakeholders that patient experiences and outcomes are the best measures of integration, and that the main measures currently used to assess integration do not directly assess patient benefits. Validated health status measures are readily available, however, a substantial shift in practices is required before their use becomes commonplace.

Measures for the integration of health and social care services for long-term health conditions: a systematic review of reviews.

BACKGROUND: As people are living longer with higher incidences of long-term health conditions, there is a move towards greater integration of care, including integration of health and social care services. Integrated care needs to be comprehensively and systematically evaluated if it is to be implemented widely. We performed a systematic review of reviews to identify measures which have been used to assess integrated care across health and social care services for people living with long-term health conditions. METHODS: Four electronic databases (PUBMED; MEDLINE; EMBASE; Cochrane library of systematic reviews) were searched in August 2018 for relevant reviews evaluating the integration of health and social care between 1998 and 2018. Articles were assessed according to apriori eligibility criteria. A data extraction form was utilised to collate the identified measures into five categories. RESULTS: Of the 18 articles included, system outcomes and process measures were most frequently identified (15 articles each). Patient or carer reported outcomes were identified in 13 articles while health outcomes were reported in 12 articles. Structural measures were reported in nine articles. Challenges to measuring integration included the identification of a wide range of potential impacts of integration, difficulties in comparing findings due to differences in study design and heterogeneity of types of outcomes, and a need for appropriate, robust measurement tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our review revealed no shortage of measures for assessing the structures, processes and outcomes of integrated care. The very large number of available measures and infrequent use of any common set make comparisons between schemes more difficult. The promotion of core measurement sets and stakeholder consultation would advance measurement in this area.

Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ): initial validation survey among primary care patients and social care recipients in England.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate a new generic patient-reported outcome measure, the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ), among a diverse sample of health and social care users in England. DESIGN: Cross-sectional validation survey. Data were collected through postal surveys (February 2016-January 2017). The sample included a healthcare cohort of patients recruited through primary care practices, and a social care cohort recruited through local government bodies that provide social care services. PARTICIPANTS: 1211 participants (24% confirmed social care recipients) took part in the study. Healthcare participants were recruited on the basis of having one of 11 specified long-term conditions (LTCs), and social care participants were recruited on the basis of receiving social care support for at least one LTC. The sample exhibited high multimorbidity, with 93% reporting two or more LTCs and 43% reporting a mental health condition. OUTCOME MEASURES: The LTCQ's construct validity was tested with reference to the EQ-5D (5-level version), the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale, an Activities of Daily Living scale and the Bayliss burden of morbidity scale. RESULTS: Low levels of missing data for each item indicate acceptability of the LTCQ across the sample. The LTCQ exhibits high internal consistency (Cronbach's α=0.95) across the scale's 20 items and excellent test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.94, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.95). Associations between the LTCQ and all reference measures were moderate to strong and in the expected directions, indicating convergent construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the LTCQ, which has potential for use in both health and social care settings. The LTCQ could meet a need for holistic outcome measurement that goes beyond symptoms and physical function, complementing existing measures to capture fully what it means to live well with LTCs.

Migraine and chronic daily headache management: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions.

AIM: The aim of the study was to gain insight into the patients' perceptions of migraine and chronic daily headache (CDH) management. METHODS: Thirteen, semi-structured and individual interviews with seven migraine and five CDH patients were carried out and analysed in QSR NUD*IST5, using a grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: The participants described using five areas of management: 1) health care use; 2) medication use; 3) alternative therapies; 4) social support; and 5) lifestyle and self-help. The participants described their expectations, preferences, worries and (dis)satisfaction in relation to these five areas of management. The participants adapted headache management to suit their needs and preferences, making migraine and CDH management highly individual and giving the headache patient a central role within their own care. CONCLUSION: Health care is changing towards a greater involvement of the patients in their own care. Therefore, it is important to increase understanding of the patients' perspective of chronic diseases, including migraine and CDH. The results from this study inform health care professionals of the range of their patients' needs and preferences. This knowledge can be used to shape clinical practice, to develop patient education programmes and to further research efforts into issues that are important to the headache patient.