Values, interests and power: the politics of integrating services

Navigating the micro-politics of major system change: The implementation of Sustainability Transformation Partnerships in the English health and care system

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how health and care leaders navigate the micro-politics of major system change (MSC) as manifest in the formulation and implementation of Sustainability and Transformation Partnerships (STPs) in the English National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A comparative qualitative case study of three STPs carried out between 2018-2021. Data collection comprised 72 semi-structured interviews with STP leaders and stakeholders; 49h of observations of STP executive meetings, management teams and thematic committees, and documentary sources. Interpretative analysis involved developing individual and cross case reports to understand the 'disagreements, 'people and interests' and the 'skills, behaviours and practice'.

FINDINGS

Three linked political fault-lines underpinned the micro-politics of formulating and implementing STPs: differences in meaning and value, perceptions of winners and losers, and structural differences in power and influence. In managing these issues, STP leaders engaged in a range of complementary strategies to understand and reconcile meanings, appraise and manage risks and benefits, and to redress longstanding power imbalances, as well as those related to their own ambiguous position.

CONCLUSION

Given the lack of formal authority and breadth of system change, navigating the micro-politics of MSC requires political skills in listening and engagement, strategic appraisal of the political landscape and effective negotiation and consensus-building.

Integrated Payment, Fragmented Realities? A Discourse Analysis of Integrated Payment in the Netherlands

The current models used for paying for health and social care are considered a major barrier to integrated care. Despite the implementation of integrated payment schemes proving difficult, such initiatives are still widely pursued. In the Netherlands, this development has led to a payment architecture combining traditional and integrated payment models. To gain insight into the justification for and future viability of integrated payment, this paper’s purpose is to explain the current duality by identifying discourses on integrated payment models, determining which discourses predominate, and how they have changed over time and differ among key stakeholders in healthcare. The discourse analysis revealed four discourses, each with its own underlying assumptions and values regarding integrated payment. First, the Quality-of-Care discourse sees integrated payment as instrumental in improving care. Second, the Affordability discourse emphasizes how integrated payment can contribute to the financial sustainability of the healthcare system. Third, the Bureaucratization discourse highlights the administrative burden associated with integrated payment models. Fourth, the Strategic discourse stresses micropolitical and professional issues that come into play when implementing such models. The future viability of integrated payment depends on how issues reflected in the Bureaucratization and Strategic discourses are addressed without losing sight of quality-of-care and affordability, two aspects attracting significant public interest in The Netherlands.

Exploring the Quality Paradigms in Integrated Care: The Need for Emergence and Reflection

Introduction and Aim:

There are four quality paradigms, of which the Empirical and Reference paradigm fit best in stable circumstances, and the Reflective and Emergence paradigms, which fit best in unstable circumstances. This study aims to explore the use of the four quality paradigms in integrated care, and to shed light on the different paradigmatic commitments and different perspectives on quality.

Methods:

Peer-reviewed articles from the International Journal of Integrated care published between January 2015 and December 2019 were included in this study. For each article was determined in which paradigm it belonged. Additionally, the role of the patient and domain of impact in research, policy or practice in relationship to the paradigms were investigated.

Results:

In total, 255 articles were assessed based on the four quality paradigms. 55 (21.6%) of the articles were placed in the Empirical paradigm, 147 (57.6%) in the Reference paradigm and 45 (17.6%) in the Reflective paradigm. The Emergence paradigm occurred the least (n = 8, 3.1%).

Discussion and conclusion:

Of all reviewed studies, 80% were placed in the Empirical and Reference paradigm. This raises the question if the used research approaches are consistent with the complexity and contexts in the field of integrated care and support a personalised care approach. More awareness of all four paradigms and reflection on the used epistemologies is needed.

Bumpy road: implementing integrated psychiatric and somatic care in joint-specialty emergency departments: a mixed-method study using Normalization Process Theory

Purpose

Life expectancy is 15–20 years shorter for individuals with than for people without mental illness. Assuming that undiagnosed and undertreated somatic conditions are significant causes, the Central Denmark Region set out to implement joint psychiatric and somatic emergency departments (EDs) to support integrated psychiatric/somatic care as an effort to prolong the lifetime of individuals with mental illness. Through the lens of Normalization Process Theory, the authors examine healthcare frontline staff’s perceptions of and work with the implementation of integrated psychiatric/somatic care in the first joint-specialty ED in Denmark.

Design/methodology/approach

A single-case mixed-methods study using Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as an analytic framework to evaluate implementation of psychiatric/somatic integrated care (IC) in a joint-specialty emergency department. Data were generated from observations, qualitative interviews and questionnaires distributed to the frontline staff.

Findings

Implementation was characterized by a diffuse normalization leading to an adaption of the IC in a fuzzy alignment with existing practice. Especially, confusion among the staff regarding how somatic examination in the ED would ensure prolonged lifetime for people with mental illness was a barrier to sense-making and development of coherence among the staff. The staff questioned the accuracy of IC in the ED even though they recognized the need for better somatic care for individuals with mental illness.

Practical implications

This study highlights that a focus on outcomes (prolonging lifetime for people with mental illness and reducing stigmatization) can be counterproductive. Replacing the outcome focus with an output focus, in terms of how to develop and implement psychiatric/somatic IC with the patient perspective at the center, would probably be more productive.

Originality/value

In 2020, the Danish Health Authorities published new whole-system recommendations for emergency medicine (EM) highlighting the need for intensifying integrated intra and interorganizational care including psychiatric/somatic IC (ref). Even though this study is not conclusive, it points to subjects that can help to identify resources needed to implement psychiatric/somatic IC and to pitfalls. The authors argue that the outcome focus, prolonging the lifetime for individuals with mental illness by identifying somatic illness, was counterproductive. In accordance with the recommendations of contemporary implementation studies, the authors recommend a shift in focus from outcome to output focus; how to develop and implement psychiatric/somatic IC.

Reconciling practice, research and reality of integrated care. Critical reflections on the state of a discipline

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to critically reflect on the practice, rhetoric and reality of integrating care. Echoing Le Grand's framework of motivation, agency and policy, it is argued that the stories the authors tell themselves why the authors embark on integration programmes differ from the reasons why managers commit to these programmes. This split between policy rhetoric and reality has implications for the way the authors investigate integration.

Design/methodology/approach

Examining current integration policy, practice and research, the paper adopts the critical framework articulated by Le Grand about the underlying assumptions of health care policy and practice.

Findings

It is argued that patient perspectives are speciously placed at the centre of integration policy but mask the existing organizational and managerial rationalities of integration. Making the patient the measure of all things integration would turn this agenda back on its feet.

Originality/value

The paper discusses the underlying assumptions of integration policy, practice and research. Increasing the awareness about the gap between what the authors do, why the authors do it and the stories the authors tell themselves about it injects a much needed amount of criticality into research and practice.

Sharing a vision. Do participants in integrated care programmes have the same goals and objectives?

Integrating health and social care services remains one of the most difficult undertakings in the field of care delivery. One of the key requirements for success in integration programmes is a shared vision amongst care providers. Shared visions may contain views as to what the new services should look like, how it should operate and what it should be able to achieve. The paper reports findings of an evaluation of a service integration programme in the North of England. It confirms that a programme consensus on issues such as aims and objectives and programme logics is seen by participants as a key to success. Yet, the study also found that there is a specific window of opportunity in integration programmes when participating organisations start on relatively high levels of commitment and enthusiasm which tend to tail off relatively quickly. The paper closes with a discussion about the implications of the findings for programme designers and service planners.

Big Data and what it means for evaluating integrated care programmes

Purpose

Big Data is likely to have significant implications for the way in which services are planned, organised or delivered as well as the way in which we evaluate them. The increase in data availability creates particular challenges for evaluators in the field of integrated care and the purpose of this paper is to set out how we may usefully reframe these challenges in the longer term.

Design/methodology/approach

Using the characteristics of Big Data as defined in the literature, the paper develops a narrative around the data and research design challenges and how they influence evaluation studies in the field of care integration.

Findings

Big Data will have significant implications for how we conduct integrated care evaluations. In particular, dynamic modelling and study designs capable of accommodating new epistemic foundations for the phenomena of social organisations, such as emergence and feedback loops, are likely to be most helpful. Big Data also generates opportunities for exploratory data analysis approaches, as opposed to static model development and testing. Evaluators may find research designs useful that champion realist approaches or single-n designs.

Originality/value

This paper reflects on the emerging literature and changing practice of data generation and data use in health care. It draws on organisational theory and outlines implications of Big Data for evaluating care integration initiatives.

Citizens as Active Participants in Integrated Care: Challenging the Field's Dominant Paradigms

Policy makers, practitioners and academics often claim that care users and other citizens should be 'at the center' of care integration pursuits. Nonetheless, the field of integrated care tends to approach these constituents as passive recipients of professional and managerial efforts. This paper critically reflects on this discrepancy, which, we contend, indicates both a key objective and an ongoing challenge of care integration; i.e., the need to reconcile (1) the professional, organizational and institutional frameworks by which care work is structured with (2) the diversity and diffuseness that is inherent to pursuits of active user and citizen participation. By identifying four organizational tensions that result from this challenge, we raise questions about whose knowledge counts (lay/professional), who is in control (local/central), who participates (inclusion/exclusion) and whose interests matter (civic/organizational). By making explicit what so often remains obscured in the literature, we enable actors to more effectively address these tensions in their pursuits of care integration. In turn, we are able to generate a more realistic outlook on the opportunities, limitations and pitfalls of citizen participation.