How do integrative practices influence patient-centered care?: An exploratory study comparing diabetes and mental health care.

BACKGROUND: Integration between organizational units to achieve common goals has been of interest to health systems because of the potential to improve patient-centered care. However, the means by which integrative practices actually influence patient-centered care remain unclear. Whereas many studies claim a positive association between implementation of integrative practices and patient-centered care, others raise concerns that integrative practices may not necessarily improve patient-centered care. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the mechanism by which integrative practices influence patient-centered care and to suggest a systematic approach for effective integration. APPROACH: We conducted a qualitative study comparing diabetes and mental health services through focus groups with 60 staff members from one health maintenance organization. We developed quantitative indicators to support the suggested model. FINDINGS: We identified a five-category framework of integrative practices that each directly and distinctively influences patient-centered care. Moreover, our findings suggest that integrative practices influence patient-centered care indirectly through creation of interdependent treatment competence, which enables providers to repeatedly deliver interdependent treatment in a flexible and adaptive way. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Providers should carefully implement integrative practices considering patient and disease characteristics, as our findings suggest that more implementation of integrative practices is not necessarily better for patient-centered care. Specifically, optimal implementation refers to the collective implementation of different integrative practices and thus encompasses both the extent (i.e., the amount of currently implemented practices out of those considered important to implement) and the extensiveness (i.e., the amount relative to the implementation of other practices) that may lead to interdependent treatment competence and higher patient-centered care. We suggest a creative measurement method of comparing the relative implementation of integrative practices that may assist managers and policy makers in developing interdependent treatment competence.

Architecting the Future U.S. Military Psychological Health Enterprise via Policy and Procedure Analysis.

Although researchers suggest that a systems approach is required to make meaningful advances in the U.S. psychological health care system for service members, limited research has considered such an approach. This research uses an enterprise architecting framework to identify the system's strengths and areas for opportunity as they relate to the Ecosystem, Stakeholders, Strategy, Process, Organization, Knowledge, Information, and Infrastructure. Codifying qualitative data from publicly available U.S. Defense Health Agency and U.S. Service Branch doctrine, policy guidance, and concepts of operations, our findings indicate that the psychological health care system is strongly process-oriented and mentions a variety of key stakeholders and their roles and responsibilities in the enterprise. Potential opportunities of improvement for the system include a stronger emphasis on the development and transfer of knowledge capabilities, and a stronger information-based infrastructure.

A conceptual model of the psychological health system for U.S. active duty service members: an approach to inform leadership and policy decision making.

The influence of individual-level factors such as pretraumatic risk and protective factors and the availability of unit-level and enterprise-level factors on psychological health outcomes have been previously considered individually, but have not been considered in tandem across the U.S. Military psychological health system. We use the existing literature on military psychological health to build a conceptual system dynamics model of the U.S. Military psychological health system "service-cycle" from accession and deployment to future psychological health screening and treatment. The model highlights a few key observations, challenges, and opportunities for improvement for the system that relate to several topics including the importance of modeling operational demand combined with the population's psychological health as opposed to only physical health; the role of resilience and post-traumatic growth on the mitigation of stress; the positive and negative effects of pretraumatic risk factors, unit support, and unit leadership on the service-cycle; and the opportunity to improve the system more rapidly by including more feedback mechanisms regarding the usefulness of pre- and post-traumatic innovations to medical leaders, funding authorities, and policy makers.