Flexible Assertive Community Treatment in Rural and Remote Areas: A Qualitative Study of the Challenges and Adaptations of the Model.

Background: Flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) is an innovative model for providing long-term treatment to people with severe mental illness. The model was developed in the Netherlands but is now used in other countries, including Norway, which has a geography different from the Netherlands, with many rural and remote areas. Implementation of innovations is context dependent. The FACT model's potential in rural and remote areas has not been studied. Therefore, we aimed to gain knowledge regarding the challenges and modifications of the model in rural and remote contexts and discuss how they can affect the model's potential in such areas. This knowledge can improve the understanding of how FACT or similar services can be adapted to function most optimally in such conditions. We sought to address the following questions: Which elements of the FACT model do team leaders of the rural FACT teams find particularly challenging due to the context, and what modifications have the teams made to the model? Methods: Digital interviews were conducted with five team leaders from five rural FACT teams in different parts of Norway. They were selected using purposive sampling to include team leaders from some of the most rural teams in Norway. The interviews were analyzed using thematic text analysis. Results: The following three themes described elements of the FACT model that were experienced particularly challenging in the rural and remote context: multidisciplinary shared caseload approach, intensive outreach and crisis management. The following eight themes described the modifications that the teams had made to the model: intermunicipal collaboration, context-adaptive planning, delegation of tasks to municipal services, part-time employment, different geographical locations of staff, use of digital tools, fewer FACT board meetings, and reduced caseload. Conclusions: Rural and remote contexts challenge the FACT model's potential. However, modifications can be made, some of which can be considered innovative modifications that can increase the model's potential in such areas, while others might move the teams further away from the model.

Integration of Care in Complex and Fragmented Service Systems: Experiences of Staff in Flexible Assertive Community Treatment Teams.

Introduction: To provide more integrated care, several countries have implemented the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) model. However, this model does not guarantee full integration, especially in complex and fragmented service systems like in Norway. Hence, we investigated which barriers that might reduce the potential for integrated care in the Norwegian system, as described by staff in FACT teams, and how they adjust their way of working to increase the opportunities for integration. Methods: Online focus group interviews involving 35 staff members of five Norwegian FACT teams were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. The material was analysed using thematic text analysis. Results: Six themes described the barriers to integrated care in the service system: fragmentation, different legislation and digital systems, challenges in collaboration, bureaucracy and limited opening hours. Three themes described adjustments in the teams' way of working to enhance integration: working as the responsible co-ordinator, being a collaborator, and the only entry channel into the service system. Conclusion: The FACT team staff described several barriers to integration within the system. However, they made some adjustments in their way of working that might provide opportunities for integrated care within complex and fragmented service systems.

Flexible assertive community treatment teams can change complex and fragmented service systems: experiences of service providers.

BACKGROUND: Implementing innovative health service models in existing service systems is complicated and context dependent. Flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) is a multidisciplinary service model aimed at providing integrated care for people with severe mental illness. The model was developed in the Netherlands and is now used in several countries, such as Norway. The Norwegian service system is complex and fragmented, with challenges in collaboration. Limited research has been performed on FACT teams and other new integrative health service models as part of such systems. However, such knowledge is important for future adjustments of innovation processes and service systems. Our aim was to explore how FACT teams are integrated into the existing formal public service system, how they function and affect the system, and describe some influencing factors to this. We sought to address how service providers in the existing service system experience the functioning of FACT teams in the system. METHODS: Five focus group interviews were undertaken 3 years after the FACT teams were implemented. Forty service providers representing different services from both levels of administration (primary and specialist healthcare) from different Norwegian regions participated in this study. Team leaders of the FACT teams also participated. Service providers were recruited through purposeful sampling. Interviews were analysed using thematic text analysis. RESULTS: The analysis revealed five main themes regarding FACT teams: (1) They form a bridge between different services; (2) They collaborate with other services; (3) They undertake responsibility and reassure other services; (4) They do not close all gaps in service systems; and (5) They are part of a service system that hampers their functioning. CONCLUSIONS: The FACT teams in this study contributed to positive changes in the existing service system. They largely contributed to less complex and fragmented systems by forming a bridge and undertaking responsibility in the system and by collaborating with and reassuring other services; this has reduced some gaps in the system. The way FACT teams function and needs of the existing system appear to have contributed positively to these findings. However, complexity and fragmentation of the system partly hamper functioning of the FACT teams.