Why doesn't integrated care work? Using Strong Structuration Theory to explain the limitations of an English case.

Integrated care is an aim and a method for organising health and care services, particularly for older people and those with chronic conditions. Policy expects that integrated care programmes will provide person-centred coordinated care which will improve patient or client experience, enable population health, prevent hospital admissions and thereby reduce costs. However, empirical evaluations of integrated care interventions have shown disappointing results. We analysed an in-depth case study using Strong Structuration Theory to ask: how and why have efforts to integrate health and social care failed to produce desired outcomes? In our case, integrated case management and the creation of cost-saving plans were dominant practices. People working in health and social care recursively produced a structure of integrated care: a recognised set of resources created by collective activities. Integrated care, intended to help patients manage their long-term conditions and avoid hospital admission, was only a small part of the complex network that sustained patients at home. The structures of integrated care were unable to compensate for changes in patients' health. The result was that patients' experiences remained largely unaffected and hospital admissions were not easily avoided.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines compliance of a sarcoma service: A retrospective review.

BACKGROUND: Clinical workup and treatment guidelines have been published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) to ensure patients are treated uniformly and appropriately. This study sought to retrospectively review patients with a new diagnosis of sarcoma who were treated in a National Cancer Institute (NCI) designated center and determine compliance rates with guidelines for sarcoma. AIM: To evaluate our compliance of NCCN sarcoma guidelines at a major NCI designated center and to report instances of deviation that could be used for future studies to improve patient care. METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively as an internal review and quality assessment of 35 newly diagnosed and treated patients. Demographic data were recorded and information concerning whether patients had appropriate imaging, biopsy and management. Variables of interest were expressed as raw numbers and percentages. RESULTS: Primary site imaging was obtained in 100% of cases. Chest and full-body imaging were obtained in 97% and 100% of indicated cases, respectively. Tissue was obtained preoperatively in 97% of cases. Imaging was reviewed at multidisciplinary Treatment Planning Conference (TPC) in 97% of cases. Pathology was reviewed in 94% of cases in TPC. Both tumor, node, metastasis staging and plan of care were reviewed in 100% of cases in TPC. Treatment guidelines were followed in 94% of cases reviewed. CONCLUSION: This study evaluated the workup and treatment provided by a single NCI designated sarcoma service to a series of patients with pathologies defined with the NCCN sarcoma treatment guidelines. Although adherence to NCCN was reported to be very high future prospective studies are required to investigate whether NCCN guidelines impact patient outcomes.

Rethinking Integrated Care: A Systematic Hermeneutic Review of the Literature on Integrated Care Strategies and Concepts.

Policy Points Integrated care is best understood as an emergent set of practices intrinsically shaped by contextual factors, and not as a single intervention to achieve predetermined outcomes. Policies to integrate care that facilitate person-centered, relationship-based care can potentially contribute to (but not determine) improved patient experiences. There can be an association between improved patient experiences and system benefits, but these outcomes of integrated care are of different orders and do not necessarily align. Policymakers should critically evaluate integrated care programs to identify and manage conflicts and tensions between a program's aims and the context in which it is being introduced. CONTEXT: Integrated care is a broad concept, used to describe a connected set of clinical, organizational, and policy changes aimed at improving service efficiency, patient experience, and outcomes. Despite examples of successful integrated care systems, evidence for consistent and reproducible benefits remains elusive. We sought to inform policy and practice by conducting a systematic hermeneutic review of literature covering integrated care strategies and concepts. METHODS: We used an emergent search strategy to identify 71 sources that considered what integrated care means and/or tested models of integrated care. Our analysis entailed (1) comparison of strategies and concepts of integrated care, (2) tracing common story lines across multiple sources, (3) developing a taxonomy of literature, and (4) generating a novel interpretation of the heterogeneous strategies and concepts of integrated care. FINDINGS: We identified four perspectives on integrated care: patients' perspectives, organizational strategies and policies, conceptual models, and theoretical and critical analysis. We subdivided the strategies into four framings of how integrated care manifests and is understood to effect change. Common across empirical and conceptual work was a concern with unity in the face of fragmentation as well as the development and application of similar methods to achieve this unity. However, integrated care programs did not necessarily lead to the changes intended in experiences and outcomes. We attribute this gap between expectations and results, in part, to significant misalignment between the aspiration for unity underpinning conceptual models on the one hand and the multiplicity of practical application of strategies to integrate care on the other. CONCLUSIONS: Those looking for universal answers to narrow questions about whether integrated care "works" are likely to remain disappointed. Models of integrated care need to be valued for their heuristic rather than predictive powers, and integration understood as emerging from particular as well as common contexts.

Any qualified provider: a qualitative case study of one community NHS Trust's response.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how those managing and providing community-based musculoskeletal (MSK) services have experienced recent policy allowing patients to choose any provider that meets certain quality standards from the National Health Service (NHS), private or voluntary sector. DESIGN: Intrinsic case study combining qualitative analysis of interviews and field notes. SETTING: An NHS Community Trust (the main providers of community health services in the NHS) in England, 2013-2014. PARTICIPANTS: NHS Community Trust employees involved in delivering MSK services, including clinical staff and managerial staff in senior and mid-range positions. FINDINGS: Managers (n=4) and clinicians (n=4) working within MSK services understood and experienced the Any Qualified Provider (AQP) policy as involving: (1) a perceived trade-off between quality and cost in its implementation; (2) deskilling of MSK clinicians and erosion of professional values; and (3) a shift away from interprofessional collaboration and dialogue. These ways of making sense of AQP policy were associated with dissatisfaction with market-based health reforms. CONCLUSIONS: AQP policy is poorly understood. Clinicians and managers perceive AQP as synonymous with competition and privatisation. From the perspective of clinicians providing MSK services, AQP, and related health policy reforms, tend, paradoxically, to drive down quality standards, supporting reconfiguration of services in which the complex, holistic nature of specialised MSK care may become marginalised by policy concerns about efficiency and cost. Our analysis indicates that the potential of AQP policy to increase quality of care is, at best, equivocal, and that any consideration of how AQP impacts on practice can only be understood by reference to a wider range of health policy reforms.

Fragmentation: a wicked problem with an integrated solution?

Integrated care is central to current health care reforms as policy makers and practitioners struggle to address fragmentation of care planning and delivery. However, those pursuing integration have failed to appreciate the complex nature of fragmentation. We seek to bring some much-needed clarity to current debate by considering fragmentation as a 'wicked problem' requiring a locally driven and multifaceted approach to integration.