Integration and Continuity of Primary Care: Polyclinics and Alternatives, a Patient-Centred Analysis of How Organisation Constrains Care Coordination

Background An ageing population, increasingly specialised of clinical services and diverse healthcare provider ownership make the coordination and continuity of complex care increasingly problematic. The way in which the provision of complex healthcare is coordinated produces – or fails to – six forms of continuity of care (cross-sectional, longitudinal, flexible, access, informational, relational). Care coordination is accomplished by a combination of activities by: patients themselves; provider organisations; care networks coordinating the separate provider organisations; and overall health system governance. This research examines how far organisational integration might promote care coordination at the clinical level. Objectives To examine: 1. What differences the organisational integration of primary care makes, compared with network governance, to horizontal and vertical coordination of care. 2. What difference provider ownership (corporate, partnership, public) makes. 3. How much scope either structure allows for managerial discretion and ‘performance’. 4. Differences between networked and hierarchical governance regarding the continuity and integration of primary care. 5. The implications of the above for managerial practice in primary care. Methods Multiple-methods design combining: 1. Assembly of an analytic framework by non-systematic review. 2. Framework analysis of patients’ experiences of the continuities of care. 3. Systematic comparison of organisational case studies made in the same study sites. 4. A cross-country comparison of care coordination mechanisms found in our NHS study sites with those in publicly owned and managed Swedish polyclinics. 5. Analysis and synthesis of data using an ‘inside-out’ analytic strategy. Study sites included professional partnership, corporate and publicly owned and managed primary care providers, and different configurations of organisational integration or separation of community health services, mental health services, social services and acute in-patient care. Results Starting from data about patients' experiences of the coordination or under-coordination of care we identified: 1. Five care coordination mechanisms present in both the integrated organisations and the care networks. 2. Four main obstacles to care coordination within the integrated organisations, of which two were also present in the care networks. 3. Seven main obstacles to care coordination that were specific to the care networks. 4. Nine care coordination mechanisms present in the integrated organisations. Taking everything into consideration, integrated organisations appeared more favourable to producing continuities of care than were care networks. Network structures demonstrated more flexibility in adding services for small care groups temporarily, but the expansion of integrated organisations had advantages when adding new services on a longer term and larger scale. Ownership differences affected the range of services to which patients had direct access; primary care doctors’ managerial responsibilities (relevant to care coordination because of its impact on GP workload); and the scope for doctors to develop special interests. We found little difference between integrated organisations and care networks in terms of managerial discretion and performance. Conclusions On balance, an integrated organisation seems more likely to favour the development of care coordination, and therefore continuities of care, than a system of care networks. At least four different variants of ownership and management of organisationally integrated primary care providers are practicable in NHS-like settings

Integration and continuity of primary care: polyclinics and alternatives - a patient-centred analysis of how organisation constrains care co-ordination

Background An ageing population, the increasing specialisation of clinical services and diverse health-care provider ownership make the co-ordination and continuity of complex care increasingly problematic. The way in which the provision of complex health care is co-ordinated produces – or fails to produce – six forms of continuity of care (cross-sectional, longitudinal, flexible, access, informational and relational). Care co-ordination is accomplished by a combination of activities by patients themselves; provider organisations; care networks co-ordinating the separate provider organisations; and overall health-system governance. This research examines how far organisational integration might promote care co-ordination at the clinical level. Objectives To examine (1) what differences the organisational integration of primary care makes, compared with network governance, to horizontal and vertical co-ordination of care; (2) what difference provider ownership (corporate, partnership, public) makes; (3) how much scope either structure allows for managerial discretion and ‘performance’; (4) differences between networked and hierarchical governance regarding the continuity and integration of primary care; and (5) the implications of the above for managerial practice in primary care. Methods Multiple-methods design combining (1) the assembly of an analytic framework by non-systematic review; (2) a framework analysis of patients’ experiences of the continuities of care; (3) a systematic comparison of organisational case studies made in the same study sites; (4) a cross-country comparison of care co-ordination mechanisms found in our NHS study sites with those in publicly owned and managed Swedish polyclinics; and (5) the analysis and synthesis of data using an ‘inside-out’ analytic strategy. Study sites included professional partnership, corporate and publicly owned and managed primary care providers, and different configurations of organisational integration or separation of community health services, mental health services, social services and acute inpatient care. Results Starting from data about patients’ experiences of the co-ordination or under-co-ordination of care, we identified five care co-ordination mechanisms present in both the integrated organisations and the care networks; four main obstacles to care co-ordination within the integrated organisations, of which two were also present in the care networks; seven main obstacles to care co-ordination that were specific to the care networks; and nine care co-ordination mechanisms present in the integrated organisations. Taking everything into consideration, integrated organisations appeared more favourable to producing continuities of care than did care networks. Network structures demonstrated more flexibility in adding services for small care groups temporarily, but the expansion of integrated organisations had advantages when adding new services on a longer term and a larger scale. Ownership differences affected the range of services to which patients had direct access; primary care doctors’ managerial responsibilities (relevant to care co-ordination because of their impact on general practitioner workload); and the scope for doctors to develop special interests. We found little difference between integrated organisations and care networks in terms of managerial discretion and performance. Conclusions On balance, an integrated organisation seems more likely to favour the development of care co-ordination and, therefore, continuities of care than a system of care networks. At least four different variants of ownership and management of organisationally integrated primary care providers are practicable in NHS-like settings. Future research is therefore required, above all to evaluate comparatively the different techniques for coordinating patient discharge across the triple interface between hospitals, general practices and community health services; and to discover what effects increasing the scale and scope of general practice activities will have on continuity of care

Framework of Social Customer Relationship Management in E-Health Services

Healthcare organization is implementing Customer Relationship Management (CRM) as a strategy for managing interactions with patients involving technology to organize, automate, and coordinate business processes. Web-based CRM provides healthcare organization with the ability to broaden service beyond its usual practices in achieving a complex patient care goal, and this paper discusses and demonstrates how a new approach in CRM based on Web 2.0 or Social CRM helps healthcare organizations to improve their customer support, and at the same time avoiding possible conflicts, and promoting better healthcare to patients. A conceptual framework of the new approach will be proposed and highlighted. The framework includes some important features of Social CRM such as customer's empowerment, social interactivity between healthcare organization-patients, and patients-patients. The framework offers new perspective in building relationships between healthcare organizations and customers and among customers in e-health scenario. It is developed based on the latest development of CRM literatures and case studies analysis. In addition, customer service paradigm in social network's era, the important of online health education, and empowerment in healthcare organization will be taken into consideration.Comment: 15 pages. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:1204.3689, arXiv:1203.3919, arXiv:1204.3685, arXiv:1203.4309, arXiv:1204.3691, arXiv:1203.392

Social networks : the future for health care delivery

With the rapid growth of online social networking for health, health care systems are experiencing an inescapable increase in complexity. This is not necessarily a drawback; self-organising, adaptive networks could become central to future health care delivery. This paper considers whether social networks composed of patients and their social circles can compete with, or complement, professional networks in assembling health-related information of value for improving health and health care. Using the framework of analysis of a two-sided network – patients and providers – with multiple platforms for interaction, we argue that the structure and dynamics of such a network has implications for future health care. Patients are using social networking to access and contribute health information. Among those living with chronic illness and disability and engaging with social networks, there is considerable expertise in assessing, combining and exploiting information. Social networking is providing a new landscape for patients to assemble health information, relatively free from the constraints of traditional health care. However, health information from social networks currently complements traditional sources rather than substituting for them. Networking among health care provider organisations is enabling greater exploitation of health information for health care planning. The platforms of interaction are also changing. Patient-doctor encounters are now more permeable to influence from social networks and professional networks. Diffuse and temporary platforms of interaction enable discourse between patients and professionals, and include platforms controlled by patients. We argue that social networking has the potential to change patterns of health inequalities and access to health care, alter the stability of health care provision and lead to a reformulation of the role of health professionals. Further research is needed to understand how network structure combined with its dynamics will affect the flow of information and potentially the allocation of health care resources

Reaching across organisational, sectoral and geographical boundaries: exploring the learning potential of an EU cross-border project

Research This paper outlines some of the key findings from an evaluation of the project and demonstrates that EC funded projects such as this, which seek to promote cross border collaboration and understanding (i.e. across organisational, sectoral and geographical boundaries) offer considerable learning potential – not least about variances in health politics across different communities. However, for this learning to be realised a comprehensive system of knowledge management needs to be an integral part of project planning alongside a system for sustaining embryonic professional networks. The concept of managing relationships was also a key part of the projects success. Executing a project funded by the EU demands the development of complex organisational skills to negotiate all the administrative challenges en route to successful completion and this project in particular relied for its success on the development of social relationships of trust and mutual respect across national, professional and social boundaries. Context A three–year European Commission funded project designed to exchange a wide range of staff (professional semiprofessional and voluntary staff in health and social care) project led by the University of Greenwich (UK) and the Université Catholique de Lille, France was completed this year (February 2008). The project was complex because it involved working in different national contexts, was multi-disciplinary, and demanded the negotiation of multiple boundaries. Theories A mixed method evaluation including written reports gathered immediately after each exchange visit and a post hoc series of individual interviews and focus groups was conducted in order to gain qualitative information (from the participants perspective) on their experiences and to identify any learning gained. Results Analysis of the data provided evidence of learning on a number of levels; personally, inter and intra professionally and organisationally as well as across sectors and also from a project management perspective. The learning crystallised around the extent of the differences noted by the participants between the UK and the French health and social care systems despite geographical proximity, common membership of the EU and many shared challenges in health and social care. The extent of these differences, noted at every level from policy to practice proved a rich source for reflection on organisational philosophies, ways of working, distribution of resources, professional roles and autonomy and professional registration and mobility - in short on health politics at ‘macro’ and ‘micro’ levels

Adapting structuration theory to understand the role of reflexivity: Problematization, clinical audit and information systems

This paper is an exploratory account of the further development and application of a hybrid framework, StructurANTion, that is based on Structuration Theory and Actor Network Theory (ANT). The use of social theories in general and their use in information systems (IS) research in particular is explored leading to the use of the framework to examine the concept of what are termed humanchine networks in the context of clinical audit, within a healthcare Primary Care Trust (PCT). A particular focus is on the manner in which information systems-based reflexivity contributes to both entrenching a networks’ structurated order as well as contributing to its emancipatory change. The case study compares clinic-centric and patientcentric audit and seeks to further extend the understanding of the role of information and information systems within structurated humanchine activity systems. Conclusions indicate that the use of more socially informed IS methods and approaches can incorporate more emancipatory ideals and lead to greater adoption and usage of more relevant and useful clinical information systems and practices

Leadership conversations: the impact on patient environments

Purpose – The aim of this study is to examine 15 NHS acute trusts in England that achieved high scores at all their hospitals in the first four national Patient Environment audits. No common external explanations were discernible. This paper seeks to examine whether the facilities managers responsible for the Patient Environment displayed a consistent leadership style. Design/methodology/approach – Overall, six of the 15 trusts gave permission for the research to take place and a series of unstructured interviews and observations were arranged with 22 facilities managers in these trusts. Responses were transcribed and categorised through multiple iteration. Findings – The research found common leadership and managerial behaviours, many of which could be identified from other literature. The research also identified managers deliberately devoting energy and time to creating networks of conversations. This creation of networks through managing conversation is behaviour less evident in mainstream leadership literature or in the current Department of Health and NHS leadership models. Practical implications – The findings of this study offer managers (particularly those in FM and managers across NHS) a unique insight into the potential impact of leaders giving an opportunity to re-model thinking on management and leadership and the related managerial development opportunities. It provides the leverage to move facilities management from the role of a commodity or support service, to a position as a true enabler of business. Originality/value – Original research is presented in a previously under-examined area. The paper illuminates how facilities management within trusts achieving high Patient Environment Action Team (PEAT) scores is led.</p

Devolved governance systems

This article assesses the extent, nature and outcomes of the recently devolved health service governance in the four countries which comprise the United Kingdom. This four-part configuration can be seen as a natural experiment in comparative governance which could therefore carry important lessons not only for the UK but in other countries too. While remaining under the aegis of the National Health Service, each constituent devolved administration has a developed a substantially different governance system. These systems reflect fundamental issues and priorities concerning the decentring of authority, the production and deployment of authority, the suite of incentives required and the preferred role of quasi-market mechanisms. The paper makes an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each governance regime