The Norrtaelje model: a unique model for integrated health and social care in Sweden.

Many countries organise and fund health and social care separately. The Norrtaelje model is a Swedish initiative that transformed the funding and organisation of health and social care in order to better integrate care for older people with complex needs. In Norrtaelje model, this transformation made it possible to bringing the team together, to transfer responsibility to different providers, to use care coordinators, and to develop integrated pathways and plans around transitions in and out of hospital and from nursing homes to hospital. The Norrtaelje model operates in the context of the Swedish commitment to universal coverage and public programmes based on tax-funded resources that are pooled and redistributed to citizens on the basis of need. The experience of Norrtaelje model suggests that one way to promote integration of health and social care is to start with a transformation that aligns these two sectors in terms of high level organisation and funding. This transformation then enables the changes in operations and management that can be translated into changes in care delivery. This "top-down" approach must be in-line with national priorities and policies but ultimately is successful only if the culture, resource allocation and management are changed throughout the local system.

Talking about quality: exploring how 'quality' is conceptualized in European hospitals and healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: Conceptualization of quality of care - in terms of what individuals, groups and organizations include in their meaning of quality, is an unexplored research area. It is important to understand how quality is conceptualised as a means to successfully implement improvement efforts and bridge potential disconnect in language about quality between system levels, professions, and clinical services. The aim is therefore to explore and compare conceptualization of quality among national bodies (macro level), senior hospital managers (meso level), and professional groups within clinical micro systems (micro level) in a cross-national study. METHODS: This cross-national multi-level case study combines analysis of national policy documents and regulations at the macro level with semi-structured interviews (383) and non-participant observation (803 hours) of key meetings and shadowing of staff at the meso and micro levels in ten purposively sampled European hospitals (England, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, and Norway). Fieldwork at the meso and micro levels was undertaken over a 12-month period (2011-2012) and different types of micro systems were included (maternity, oncology, orthopaedics, elderly care, intensive care, and geriatrics). RESULTS: The three quality dimensions clinical effectiveness, patient safety, and patient experience were incorporated in macro level policies in all countries. Senior hospital managers adopted a similar conceptualization, but also included efficiency and costs in their conceptualization of quality. 'Quality' in the forms of measuring indicators and performance management were dominant among senior hospital managers (with clinical and non-clinical background). The differential emphasis on the three quality dimensions was strongly linked to professional roles, personal ideas, and beliefs at the micro level. Clinical effectiveness was dominant among physicians (evidence-based approach), while patient experience was dominant among nurses (patient-centered care, enough time to talk with patients). Conceptualization varied between micro systems depending on the type of services provided. CONCLUSION: The quality conceptualization differed across system levels (macro-meso-micro), among professional groups (nurses, doctors, managers), and between the studied micro systems in our ten sampled European hospitals. This entails a managerial alignment challenge translating macro level quality definitions into different local contexts.

Prospects for comparing European hospitals in terms of quality and safety: lessons from a comparative study in five countries.

PURPOSE: Being able to compare hospitals in terms of quality and safety between countries is important for a number of reasons. For example, the 2011 European Union directive on patients' rights to cross-border health care places a requirement on all member states to provide patients with comparable information on health-care quality, so that they can make an informed choice. Here, we report on the feasibility of using common process and outcome indicators to compare hospitals for quality and safety in five countries (England, Portugal, The Netherlands, Sweden and Norway). MAIN CHALLENGES IDENTIFIED: The cross-country comparison identified the following seven challenges with respect to comparing the quality of hospitals across Europe: different indicators are collected in each country; different definitions of the same indicators are used; different mandatory versus voluntary data collection requirements are in place; different types of organizations oversee data collection; different levels of aggregation of data exist (country, region and hospital); different levels of public access to data exist; and finally, hospital accreditation and licensing systems differ in each country. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that if patients and policymakers are to compare the quality and safety of hospitals across Europe, then further work is urgently needed to agree the way forward. Until then, patients will not be able to make informed choices about where they receive their health care in different countries, and some governments will remain in the dark about the quality and safety of care available to their citizens as compared to that available in neighbouring countries.

A longitudinal, multi-level comparative study of quality and safety in European hospitals: the QUASER study protocol.

BACKGROUND: although there is a wealth of information available about quality improvement tools and techniques in healthcare there is little understanding about overcoming the challenges of day-to-day implementation in complex organisations like hospitals. The 'Quality and Safety in Europe by Research' (QUASER) study will investigate how hospitals implement, spread and sustain quality improvement, including the difficulties they face and how they overcome them. The overall aim of the study is to explore relationships between the organisational and cultural characteristics of hospitals and how these impact on the quality of health care; the findings will be designed to help policy makers, payers and hospital managers understand the factors and processes that enable hospitals in Europe to achieve-and sustain-high quality services for their patients. METHODS/DESIGN: in-depth multi-level (macro, meso and micro-system) analysis of healthcare quality policies and practices in 5 European countries, including longitudinal case studies in a purposive sample of 10 hospitals. The project design has three major features: • a working definition of quality comprising three components: clinical effectiveness, patient safety and patient experience • a conceptualisation of quality as a human, social, technical and organisational accomplishment • an emphasis on translational research that is evidence-based and seeks to provide strategic and practical guidance for hospital practitioners and health care policy makers in the European Union. Throughout the study we will adopt a mixed methods approach, including qualitative (in-depth, narrative-based, ethnographic case studies using interviews, and direct non-participant observation of organisational processes) and quantitative research (secondary analysis of safety and quality data, for example: adverse incident reporting; patient complaints and claims). DISCUSSION: the protocol is based on the premise that future research, policy and practice need to address the sociology of improvement in equal measure to the science and technique of improvement, or at least expand the discipline of improvement to include these critical organisational and cultural processes. We define the 'organisational and cultural characteristics associated with better quality of care' in a broad sense that encompasses all the features of a hospital that might be hypothesised to impact upon clinical effectiveness, patient safety and/or patient experience.

Health promotive action and preventive action model (HPA model) for the classification of health care services in public health nursing.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for an expanded approach to develop knowledge of public health nursing as a sphere of public health. The aim of this paper was to construct a theoretical model for healthcare services in the area of public health nursing based on the analysis and classification of healthcare services used in public health nursing practice. METHODS: Patient records were examined using a qualitative research approach. The categorization and classification of the actions followed certain criteria. Three methods were used for verifying and modifying the concept. RESULTS: Of the identified categories 34 dealt with healthcare services, three with administrative services, and five with coordination. The six recognized domains of the healthcare services are health promotive services, health protective services, diagnostic services, therapeutic services, rehabilitation services, and terminal healthcare services. Using the public health approach, the Health promotive action and preventive action model (HPA model) was constructed in order to visualize where in the course of the process of health-ill health and developmental stages the public health nurses provide healthcare services. Health promotion and the levels of prevention are described on the operational and conceptual levels in this paper. CONCLUSIONS: The result is expected to have an important effect on how public health nurses conceptualize their field of knowledge. The classification reflects current public health policy by focusing on health promotion and illness prevention. The developed HPA model will support health service research.