Identifying Differences in Frames of Reference That Are Hard to Reconcile During the Process of Normative Integration to Deliver Care for People with Multiple Problems:A Mixed-Method Delphi Study in the Netherlands

Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems?Methods:A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for people with multiple problems (PWMPs) worked towards consensus on appropriate care delivery through the assessment of 15 vignettes representing real trajectories of PWMPs. Results:No consensus on appropriate care delivery was reached on any of the 15 vignettes. Five differences in perspective explained the dissensus: 1) an individual versus a systemic perspective on the client; 2) a focus on self-expressed needs of clients or professionally assessed (normative) needs; 3) client-directed or caregiver-directed care; 4) client as victim of circumstances or responsible for circumstances; 5) a focus on barriers or opportunities. Conclusions: In general, panelists agreed that care for PWMPs should be integrated. However, the further integrated care was to be operationalized in practice the greater the dissensus between panelists emerged. To understand how these differences in perspectives may be overcome to provide care for PWMPs normative integration needs to be studied during actual processes of care delivery.</p

How do clients with multiple problems and (in)formal caretakers coproduce integrated care and support? A longitudinal study on integrated care trajectories of clients with multiple problems

Abstract Introduction Integrated care can create several advantages, such as better quality of care and better outcomes. These advantages apply especially to clients with multiple problems (CWMPs) who have multiple, interconnected needs that span health and social issues and require different health care (e.g., mental health care or addiction care), social care (e.g., social benefits) and welfare services at the same time. Integrated care is most often studied as a phenomenon taking place at the system, organizational, professional and clinical levels. Therefore, in many studies, clients seem to be implicitly conceptualized as passive recipients of care. Less research has been conducted on how clients and (in)formal caretakers coproduce integrated care. Methods We performed a longitudinal study to investigate how CWPMs and (in)formal caretakers coproduce integrated care. Data were collected among CWMPs and their (in)formal caretakers in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. CWMPs' care trajectories were followed for 1–1.5 years. CWMPs were interviewed three times at an interval of 6 months (T0, T1, T2). Informal caretakers were interviewed three times (T0, T1, T2), and formal caretakers of 16 clients were interviewed twice (T1, T2). Data in the municipal record systems about participating CWMPs were also included. Results Our study shows that the CWMPs' multidimensional needs, which should function as the organizing principle of integrated care, are rarely completely assessed at the start (first 6 weeks) of CWMPs' care trajectories. Important drivers behind this shortcoming are the urgent problems CWMPs enter the support trajectory with, their lack of trust in ‘the government’ and the complexity of their situations. We subsequently found two distinct types of cases. The highest level of integrated care is achieved when formal caretakers initiate an iterative process in which the CWMP's multidimensional needs are constantly further mapped out and interventions are attuned to this new information. Conclusions Our study indicates that integrated care is the joint product of formal caretakers and CWMPs. Integrated care however does not come naturally when CWMPs are ‘put at the center’. Professionals need to play a leading role in engaging CWMPs to coproduce integrated care. Patient Contribution CWMPs and their (in)formal caretakers participated in this study via interviews and contributed with their experiences of the process

Identifying Differences in Frames of Reference That Are Hard to Reconcile During the Process of Normative Integration to Deliver Care for People with Multiple Problems:A Mixed-Method Delphi Study in the Netherlands

Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems?Methods:A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for people with multiple problems (PWMPs) worked towards consensus on appropriate care delivery through the assessment of 15 vignettes representing real trajectories of PWMPs. Results:No consensus on appropriate care delivery was reached on any of the 15 vignettes. Five differences in perspective explained the dissensus: 1) an individual versus a systemic perspective on the client; 2) a focus on self-expressed needs of clients or professionally assessed (normative) needs; 3) client-directed or caregiver-directed care; 4) client as victim of circumstances or responsible for circumstances; 5) a focus on barriers or opportunities. Conclusions: In general, panelists agreed that care for PWMPs should be integrated. However, the further integrated care was to be operationalized in practice the greater the dissensus between panelists emerged. To understand how these differences in perspectives may be overcome to provide care for PWMPs normative integration needs to be studied during actual processes of care delivery.</p

How do clients with multiple problems and (in)formal caretakers coproduce integrated care and support? A longitudinal study on integrated care trajectories of clients with multiple problems

Introduction: Integrated care can create several advantages, such as better quality of care and better outcomes. These advantages apply especially to clients with multiple problems (CWMPs) who have multiple, interconnected needs that span health and social issues and require different health care (e.g., mental health care or addiction care), social care (e.g., social benefits) and welfare services at the same time. Integrated care is most often studied as a phenomenon taking place at the system, organizational, professional and clinical levels. Therefore, in many studies, clients seem to be implicitly conceptualized as passive recipients of care. Less research has been conducted on how clients and (in)formal caretakers coproduce integrated care. Methods: We performed a longitudinal study to investigate how CWPMs and (in)formal caretakers coproduce integrated care. Data were collected among CWMPs and their (in)formal caretakers in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. CWMPs' care trajectories were followed for 1–1.5 years. CWMPs were interviewed three times at an interval of 6 months (T0, T1, T2). Informal caretakers were interviewed three times (T0, T1, T2), and formal caretakers of 16 clients were interviewed twice (T1, T2). Data in the municipal record systems about participating CWMPs were also included. Results: Our study shows that the CWMPs' multidimensional needs, which should function as the organizing principle of integrated care, are rarely completely assessed at the start (first 6 weeks) of CWMPs' care trajectories. Important drivers behind this shortcoming are the urgent problems CWMPs enter the support trajectory with, their lack of trust in ‘the government’ and the complexity of their situations. We subsequently found two distinct types of cases. The highest level of integrated care is achieved when formal caretakers initiate an iterative process in which the CWMP's multidimensional needs are constantly further mapped out and interventions are attuned to this new information. Conclusions: Our study indicates that integrated care is the joint product of formal caretakers and CWMPs. Integrated care however does not come naturally when CWMPs are ‘put at the center’. Professionals need to play a leading role in engaging CWMPs to coproduce integrated care. Patient Contribution: CWMPs and their (in)formal caretakers participated in this study via interviews and contributed with their experiences of the process

Coproducing care and support delivery in healthcare triads

Dutch policy stipulates that people with dementia should remain at home for as long as possible. If they need care, they must preferably appeal to family, friends and neighbours. Professional help and nursing homes are deemed last resorts. Therefore, case managers must coproduce their public services increasingly in healthcare triads with both people with dementia (PWDs) and their informal caregivers. Case managers are professionals who provide and coordinate care and support for PWDs and their informal caregivers during the entire trajectory from (suspected) diagnosis until institutionalisation. The literature on coproduction has focused on the bilateral interactions between service providers and users rather than the multilateral collaborative relationships through which many public services are currently delivered, as is the case in dementia care. Little is known about how frontline workers, case managers in this study, handle conflicts in these healthcare triads. Our study addresses this gap in the coproduction literature and explores the action strategies case managers use to handle conflicts. We interviewed 19 Dutch case managers and observed 10 of their home visits between January and May 2017. We focused on the end stage of dementia at home, just before admission to a nursing home, as we assumed that most conflicts occur in that phase. The findings reveal that the case managers use a variety of action strategies to resolve and intervene in these conflicts. Their initial strategies are in line with the ideals underlying coproduction; however, their successive strategies abandon those ideals and are more focused on production or result from their own lack of power. We also found that current reforms create new dilemmas for case managers. Future research should focus on the boundaries of coproducing public services in triadic relationships and the effects of current welfare reforms aimed at coproducing public services in healthcare triads.</p

Dreaming the impossible dream?: An exploratory study on the expectations of Dutch clients with multiple problems concerning the co-production of public services

Currently, many policymakers try to encourage client involvement during the public service delivery process and make it a co-production. Clients are encouraged to act as active agents and embrace an integrated approach to address their problems to empower them. However, different studies have raised questions regarding to what extent these ambitions are appropriate for clients with vulnerabilities, such as clients with multiple problems. Aiming to further explore this issue, we studied the expectations of clients with multiple problems concerning the co-production of public services. We interviewed 46 clients with multiple problems at the start of their support trajectory. All 46 participants lived in five districts in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and were recruited via community-based primary care teams. Our study indicates that co-production ambitions might not resonate with clients with multiple problems. The study shows that these clients’ expectations are driven by their feelings of being overwhelmed and stressed out by their situation, feelings of being a victim of circumstances, bad experiences with public services in the past, their evaluation of what counts as a problem and the envisioned solutions. These clients expect public service providers to take over, fix their main problem(s) and not interfere with other aspects of their lives (not an integrated approach). Although participants seek a ‘normal’ life with, e.g., a house, work, partner, children, holidays, a pet, and no stress (a white picket fence life) as ideal, they do not feel that this is attainable for them. More insight into the rationale behind these expectations could help to bridge the gap between policymakers’ ambitions and clients’ expectations