Values Underpinning Integrated, People-Centred Health Services: Similarities and Differences among Actor Groups Across Europe.

Introduction: In addition to the functional aspects of healthcare integration, an understanding of its normative aspects is needed. This study explores the importance of values underpinning integrated, people-centred health services, and examines similarities and differences among the values prioritised by actors across Europe. Methods: Explorative cross-sectional design with quantitative analysis. A questionnaire of 18 values was conducted across Europe. A total of 1,013 respondents indicated the importance of each of the values on a nine-point scale and selected three most important values. Respondents were clustered in four actor groups, and countries in four European sub-regions. Results: The importance scores of values ranged from 7.62 to 8.55 on a nine-point scale. Statistically significant differences among actor groups were found for ten values. Statistically significant differences across European sub-regions were found for six values. Our analysis revealed two clusters of values: 'people related' and 'governance and organisation'. Discussion and conclusion: The study found that all 18 values in the set are considered important by the respondents. Additionally, it revealed distinctions in emphasis among the values prioritised by actor groups and across sub-regions. The study uncovered two clusters of values that contribute to a conceptually based definition of integrated, people-centred health services.

The prevalence of diabetes-related complications and multimorbidity in the population with type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Basque Country.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with a diverse range of pathologies. The aim of the study was to determine the incidence of diabetes-related complications, the prevalence of coexistent chronic conditions and to report multimorbidity in people with type 2 diabetes living in the Basque Country. METHODS: Administrative databases, in four cross sections (annually from 2007 to 2011) were consulted to analyse 149,015 individual records from patients aged ≥ 35 years with type 2 diabetes mellitus. The data observed were: age, sex, diabetes-related complications (annual rates of acute myocardial infarction, major amputations and avoidable hospitalisations), diabetes-related pathologies (prevalence of ischaemic heart disease, renal failure, stroke, heart failure, peripheral neuropathy, foot ulcers and diabetic retinopathy) and other unrelated pathologies (44 diseases). RESULTS: The annual incidence for each condition progressively decreased during the four-year period: acute myocardial infarction (0.47 to 0.40%), major amputations (0.10 to 0.08%), and avoidable hospitalisations (5.85 to 5.5%). The prevalence for diabetes-related chronic pathologies was: ischaemic heart disease (11.5%), renal failure (8.4%), stroke (7.0%), heart failure (4.3%), peripheral neuropathy (1.3%), foot ulcers (2.0%) and diabetic retinopathy (7.2%). The prevalence of multimorbidity was 90.4%. The highest prevalence for other chronic conditions was 73.7% for hypertension, 13.8% for dyspepsia and 12.7% for anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: In the type 2 diabetes mellitus population living in the Basque Country, incidence rates of diabetes complications are not as high as in other places. However, they present a high prevalence of diabetes related and unrelated diseases. Multimorbidity is very common in this group, and is a factor to be taken into account to ensure correct clinical management.

Development of a questionnaire to assess interprofessional collaboration between two different care levels.

INTRODUCTION: This paper reports the development and validation of a questionnaire to assess collaboration between clinical professionals from two different care levels (primary and specialised care), according to the clinicians' own perceptions. This questionnaire has been elaborated to be used as part of the monitoring and evaluation process of the integrated care pilots in the public Basque Health Service. METHODS: THE PROCESS WAS CARRIED OUT IN FOUR PHASES: development of the first version of the questionnaire, validation of the content, pre-testing, and evaluation of its construct validity and homogeneity in a sample of doctors and nurses. This last phase involved confirmatory factor analysis, as well as the calculation of Cronbach's α and various correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The process demonstrated that the theoretical content of the questionnaire was appropriate, and also that its items were clear, relevant and intelligible. The fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis were: χ(2) of 45.51 (p=0.089), RMSEA of 0.043, RMR of 0.046, GFI of 0.92 and CFI of 0.99. DISCUSSION: The statistics indicate a good fit between the data and a conceptual two-factor structure, in which both personal relationships between professionals and characteristics of the organisational environment are understood to underlie interprofessional collaboration. CONCLUSION: The end-product is a new instrument with good validity to assess the degree of interprofessional collaboration between clinicians working at two different levels of care.

Desarrollo de IEMAC, un Instrumento para la Evaluación de Modelos de Atención ante la Cronicidad / Development of an instrument for the assessment of chronic care models

Objetivos: Presentar el contexto, los objetivos y el proceso de elaboración de IEMAC, Instrumento de Evaluación de Modelos de Atención ante la Cronicidad, desarrollado para trasladar al terreno operativo los marcos conceptuales del Chronic Care Model (CCM), en el entorno del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Métodos: Mediante técnicas de investigación cualitativa y contando sucesivamente con expertos nacionales de diferentes perfiles, se desarrolló el IEMAC para operativizar el CCM a nuestro contexto sanitario. Se construyó una matriz considerando qué dimensiones básicas debían conformar el nuevo modelo. Se identificaron y categorizaron posibles acciones en cada dimensión, creando una taxonomía de componentes e intervenciones. Se evaluó la claridad, la pertinencia y el nivel de evidencia de cada intervención. El cuestionario resultante fue validado por otros expertos de diversas disciplinas y ámbitos. Finalmente, el instrumento IEMAC 1.0ha sido pilotado a niveles macro, meso y micro. Resultados: IEMAC es un instrumento para ser autoadministrado por organizaciones sanitarias a niveles macro, meso y micro. Consta de 6 dimensiones, 27 componentes y 80 intervenciones, cuya implantación se evalúa en una escala que combina despliegue, evaluación sistemática y orientación a la mejora. IEMAC tiene un enfoque sistémico y poblacional, integrando promoción, prevención y coordinación con servicios sociales. Conclusiones: IEMAC muestra un conjunto de intervenciones que pueden servir de hoja de ruta a decisores, gestores y clínicos interesados en construir un modelo de excelencia para la atención a pacientes crónicos, a la vez que permite que las organizaciones sanitarias conozcan su situación basal y el progreso alcanzado tras intervenciones de mejora (AU)

Objective: To present the context, aim and process of designing the Instrument for the Assessment of Chronic Care Models (Instrumento de Evaluación de Modelos de Atención ante la Cronicidad [IEMAC]), which was developed to make the conceptual framework of the chronic care model operational in the Spanish national health system. Methods: The IEMAC was developed by a series of national experts with distinct profiles of expertise using qualitative research techniques. A matrix was built with the dimensions selected as basic for the new model. In each dimension, actions were identified and categorized, creating a taxonomy of components and interventions. The clarity and appropriateness of each intervention, and the degree of evidence to support it, were assessed. The resulting questionnaire was validated by other experts from diverse disciplines and settings. Finally, the IEMAC 1.0 was piloted at macro, meso and micro levels. Results: The IEMAC is a tool to be self-administered by health organizations at macro, meso and micro levels. This instrument is composed of six dimensions, 27 components and 80 interventions, whose implementation is assessed with the aid of a scale that combines deployment, systematic evaluation, and orientation improvement. The IEMAC uses a systemic, population-based approach and integrates promotion, prevention, and coordination with social services. Conclusions: The IEMAC contains a set of interventions that can be used as a road map by decision makers, managers and clinicians interested in building a state-of-the-art chronic care model. At the same time, the IEMAC allows healthcare organizations to identify their baseline score and the progress achieved after improvement interventions (AU)

[Development of an instrument for the assessment of chronic care models]. / Desarrollo de IEMAC, un Instrumento para la Evaluación de Modelos de Atención ante la Cronicidad.

OBJECTIVE: To present the context, aim and process of designing the Instrument for the Assessment of Chronic Care Models (Instrumento de Evaluación de Modelos de Atención ante la Cronicidad [IEMAC]), which was developed to make the conceptual framework of the chronic care model operational in the Spanish national health system. METHODS: The IEMAC was developed by a series of national experts with distinct profiles of expertise using qualitative research techniques. A matrix was built with the dimensions selected as basic for the new model. In each dimension, actions were identified and categorized, creating a taxonomy of components and interventions. The clarity and appropriateness of each intervention, and the degree of evidence to support it, were assessed. The resulting questionnaire was validated by other experts from diverse disciplines and settings. Finally, the IEMAC 1.0 was piloted at macro, meso and micro levels. RESULTS: The IEMAC is a tool to be self-administered by health organizations at macro, meso and micro levels. This instrument is composed of six dimensions, 27 components and 80 interventions, whose implementation is assessed with the aid of a scale that combines deployment, systematic evaluation, and orientation improvement. The IEMAC uses a systemic, population-based approach and integrates promotion, prevention, and coordination with social services. CONCLUSIONS: The IEMAC contains a set of interventions that can be used as a road map by decision makers, managers and clinicians interested in building a state-of-the-art chronic care model. At the same time, the IEMAC allows healthcare organizations to identify their baseline score and the progress achieved after improvement interventions.