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

How co-locating public mental health interventions in community settings impacts mental health and health inequalities: a multi-site realist evaluation

BACKGROUND

Public mental health interventions are non-clinical services that aim to promote wellbeing and prevent mental ill health at the population level. In England, the health, social and community system is characterised by complex and fragmented inter-sectoral relationships. To overcome this, there has been an expansion in co-locating public mental health services within clinical settings, the focus of prior research. This study evaluates how co-location in community-based settings can support adult mental health and reduce health inequalities.

METHODS

A qualitative multi-site case study design using a realist evaluation approach was employed. Data collection took place in three phases: theory gleaning, parallel testing and refining of theories, and theory consolidation. We collected data from service users (n = 32), service providers (n = 32), funders, commissioners, and policy makers (n = 11), and members of the public (n = 10). We conducted in-depth interviews (n = 65) and four focus group discussions (n = 20) at six case study sites across England, UK, and two online multi-stakeholder workshops (n = 20). Interview guides followed realist-informed open-ended questions, adapted for each phase. The realist analysis used an iterative, inductive, and deductive data analysis approach to identify the underlying mechanisms for how community co-location affects public mental health outcomes, who this works best for, and understand the contexts in which co-location operates.

RESULTS

Five overarching co-location theories were elicited and supported. Co-located services: (1) improved provision of holistic and person-centred support; (2) reduced stigma by creating non-judgemental environments that were not associated with clinical or mental health services; (3) delivered services in psychologically safe environments by creating a culture of empathy, friendliness and trust where people felt they were being treated with dignity and respect; (4) helped to overcome barriers to accessibility by making service access less costly and more time efficient, and (5) enhance the sustainability of services through better pooling of resources.

CONCLUSION

Co-locating public mental health services within communities impacts multiple social determinants of poor mental health. It has a role in reducing mental health inequalities by helping those least likely to access services. Operating practices that engender inter-service trust and resource-sharing are likely to support sustainability.

Organization of primary care

Strong primary care does not develop spontaneously but requires a well-developed organizational planning between levels of care. Primary care-oriented health systems are required to effectively tackle unmet health needs of the population, and efficient primary care organization (PCO) is crucial for this aim. Via strong primary care, health delivery, health outcomes, equity, and health security could be improved. There are several theoretical models on how primary care can be organized. In this position paper, the key aspects and benchmarks of PCO will be explored based on previously mentioned frameworks and domains. The aim of this position paper is to assist primary care providers, policymakers, and researchers by discussing the current context of PCO and providing guidance for implementation, development, and evaluation of it in a particular setting. The conceptual map of this paper consists of structural and process (PC service organization) domains and is adapted from frameworks described in literature and World Health Organization resources. Evidence we have gathered for this paper shows that for establishing a strong PCO, it is crucial to ensure accessible, continuous, person-centered, community-oriented, coordinated, and integrated primary care services provided by competent and socially accountable multiprofessional teams working in a setting where clear policy documents exist, adequate funding is available, and primary care is managed by dedicated units.

[Does the integration of health services management improve clinical coordination? Experience in Catalonia]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the experience and perception of clinical coordination across care levels and doctor's organizational and interactional related factors, according to the type of management integration of the healthcare services of the area, in Catalonia.

METHOD

Cross-sectional study based on an online survey by self-administration of the questionnaire COORDENA-CAT.

DATA COLLECTION

October-December 2017.

STUDY POPULATION

primary and secondary care (acute and long-term care) doctors of the public Catalan health system.

SAMPLE

3308 doctors.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

experience and perception of clinical coordination, knowledge and use of coordination mechanisms and organizational and interactional factors; explanatory variables: area according to type of management (integrated, semi-integrated, non-integrated), socio-demographic, employment characteristics and attitude toward work. Descriptive analysis by type of area and multivariate analysis by robust Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Better clinical coordination was observed in integrated areas compared to those semi-integrated, mainly in relation to information transfer, adequate follow-up and perception of coordination in the area. No differences were found between integrated and non-integrated areas in the clinical coordination experience, although there were differences in perception and some related factors. There are common problems across areas, such as accessibility to secondary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Few differences were found between integrated and non-integrated areas, revealing that management integration may facilitate clinical coordination but is not enough. Differences with semi-integrated areas indicate the need to promote cooperation formulas between all the providers of the territory, with common objectives and coordination mechanisms, in order to avoid inequalities in quality of care.

The impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations and factors shaping how they work: a systematic review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Policymakers in many countries promote collaboration between health care organizations and other sectors as a route to improving population health. Local collaborations have been developed for decades. Yet little is known about the impact of cross-sector collaboration on health and health equity.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic review of reviews to synthesize evidence on the health impacts of collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations, and to understand the factors affecting how these partnerships functioned. We searched four databases and included 36 studies (reviews) in our review. We extracted data from these studies and used Nvivo 12 to help categorize the data. We assessed risk of bias in the studies using standardized tools. We used a narrative approach to synthesizing and reporting the data.

RESULTS

The 36 studies we reviewed included evidence on varying forms of collaboration in diverse contexts. Some studies included data on collaborations with broad population health goals, such as preventing disease and reducing health inequalities. Others focused on collaborations with a narrower focus, such as better integration between health care and social services. Overall, there is little convincing evidence to suggest that collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations improves health outcomes. Evidence of impact on health services is mixed. And evidence of impact on resource use and spending are limited and mixed. Despite this, many studies report on factors associated with better or worse collaboration. We grouped these into five domains: motivation and purpose, relationships and cultures, resources and capabilities, governance and leadership, and external factors. But data linking factors in these domains to collaboration outcomes is sparse.

CONCLUSIONS

In theory, collaboration between local health care and non-health care organizations might contribute to better population health. But we know little about which kinds of collaborations work, for whom, and in what contexts. The benefits of collaboration may be hard to deliver, hard to measure, and overestimated by policymakers. Ultimately, local collaborations should be understood within their macro-level political and economic context, and as one component within a wider system of factors and interventions interacting to shape population health.

Continuity of care and multiple chronic conditions impact frequent use of outpatient services

This study investigated the association between care continuity and chronic conditions in relation to highly frequent use of outpatient service in order to find constructive suggestions to bring efficient, high-quality care for patients with multiple chronic conditions. The National Health Insurance database was used and 333,294 patients were identified from 2007 to 2009. The continuity of care index indicates the dispersion of a patient's ambulatory visits among providers. Multivariate logistic regression was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios with 95 percent confidence intervals. Continuity of care index was significantly associated with age, sex, urbanization level, socioeconomic status, emergency department visits, hospitalization, psychological disorders, chronic diseases, and catastrophic illness card; those with low continuity of care index were likely to use outpatient care highly frequently. Improving continuity of care is fundamental, and the best way is to advance the practice of family medicine for primary care.

The international knowledge base for new care models relevant to primary care-led integrated models: a realist synthesis

Background

The Multispecialty Community Provider (MCP) model was introduced to the NHS as a primary care-led, community-based integrated care model to provide better quality, experience and value for local populations.

Objectives

The three main objectives were to (1) articulate the underlying programme theories for the MCP model of care; (2) identify sources of theoretical, empirical and practice evidence to test the programme theories; and (3) explain how mechanisms used in different contexts contribute to outcomes and process variables.

Design

There were three main phases: (1) identification of programme theories from logic models of MCP vanguards, prioritising key theories for investigation; (2) appraisal, extraction and analysis of evidence against a best-fit framework; and (3) realist reviews of prioritised theory components and maps of remaining theory components.

Main outcome measures

The quadruple aim outcomes addressed population health, cost-effectiveness, patient experience and staff experience.

Data sources

Searches of electronic databases with forward- and backward-citation tracking, identifying research-based evidence and practice-derived evidence.

Review methods

A realist synthesis was used to identify, test and refine the following programme theory components: (1) community-based, co-ordinated care is more accessible; (2) place-based contracting and payment systems incentivise shared accountability; and (3) fostering relational behaviours builds resilience within communities.

Results

Delivery of a MCP model requires professional and service user engagement, which is dependent on building trust and empowerment. These are generated if values and incentives for new ways of working are aligned and there are opportunities for training and development. Together, these can facilitate accountability at the individual, community and system levels. The evidence base relating to these theory components was, for the most part, limited by initiatives that are relatively new or not formally evaluated. Support for the programme theory components varies, with moderate support for enhanced primary care and community involvement in care, and relatively weak support for new contracting models.

Strengths and limitations

The project benefited from a close relationship with national and local MCP leads, reflecting the value of the proximity of the research team to decision-makers. Our use of logic models to identify theories of change could present a relatively static position for what is a dynamic programme of change.

Conclusions

Multispecialty Community Providers can be described as complex adaptive systems (CASs) and, as such, connectivity, feedback loops, system learning and adaptation of CASs play a critical role in their design. Implementation can be further reinforced by paying attention to contextual factors that influence behaviour change, in order to support more integrated working.

Future work

A set of evidence-derived ‘key ingredients’ has been compiled to inform the design and delivery of future iterations of population health-based models of care. Suggested priorities for future research include the impact of enhanced primary care on the workforce, the effects of longer-term contracts on sustainability and capacity, the conditions needed for successful continuous improvement and learning, the role of carers in patient empowerment and how community participation might contribute to community resilience.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039552.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

From programme theory to logic models for multispecialty community providers: a realist evidence synthesis

Background

The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets.

Objectives

To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly.

Design

Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way.

Data sources

Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions.

Results

The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individual patients and the diversion of patients from inpatient to primary care. The evidence was weaker, or mixed (supporting some of the constituent assumptions but not others), concerning voluntary sector involvement, the effects of preventative care on hospital admissions and patient experience, planned referral networks and demand management systems. The evidence about the effects of referral reductions on costs was equivocal. We found no studies confirming that the development of preventative care would reduce demands on inpatient services. The IPT had overlooked certain mechanisms relevant to MCPs, mostly concerning MDTs and the uses of HITs.

Limitations

The studies reviewed were limited to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, because of the large amount of published material, the period 2014–16, assuming that later studies, especially systematic reviews, already include important earlier findings. No empirical studies of MCPs yet existed.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary teams are a central mechanism by which MCPs (and equivalent networks and organisations) work, provided that the teams include the relevant professions (hence, organisations) and, for care planning, individual patients. Further primary research would be required to test elements of the revised logic model, in particular about (1) how MDTs and enhanced general practice compare and interact, or can be combined, in managing referral networks and (2) under what circumstances diverting patients from in-patient to primary care reduces NHS costs and improves the quality of patient experience.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038900.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

General practitioners: Between integration and co-location. The case of primary care centers in Tuscany, Italy

Healthcare systems have followed several strategies aimed at integrating primary care services and professionals. Medical homes in the USA and Canada, and primary care centres across Europe have collocated general practitioners and other health and social professionals in the same building in order to boost coordination among services and the continuity of care for patients. However, in the literature, the impact of co-location on primary care has led to controversial results. This article analyses the possible benefits of the co-location of services in primary care focusing on the Italian model of primary care centres (Case della Salute) in terms of general practitioners’ perception. We used the results of a web survey of general practitioners in Tuscany to compare the experiences and satisfaction of those general practitioners involved and not involved in a primary care centre, performed a MONAVA and ANOVA analysis. Our case study highlights the positive impact of co-location on the integration of professionals, especially with nurses and social workers, and on organizational integration, in terms of frequency of meeting to discuss about quality of care. Conversely, no significant differences were found in terms of either clinical or system integration. Furthermore, the collaboration with specialists is still weak. Considering the general practitioners’ perspective in terms of experience and satisfaction towards primary care, co-location strategies is a necessary step in order to facilitate the collaboration among professionals and to prevent unintended consequences in terms of an even possible isolation of primary care as an involuntary ‘disintegration of the integration’.

Collaborative action for person-centred coordinated care (P3C): an approach to support the development of a comprehensive system-wide solution to fragmented care

Background

Fragmented care results in poor outcomes for individuals with complexity of need. Person-centred coordinated care (P3C) is perceived to be a potential solution, but an absence of accessible evidence and the lack of a scalable ‘blue print’ mean that services are ‘experimenting’ with new models of care with little guidance and support. This paper presents an approach to the implementation of P3C using collaborative action, providing examples of early developments across this programme of work, the core aim of which is to accelerate the spread and adoption of P3C in United Kingdom primary care settings.

Methods

Two centrally funded United Kingdom organisations (South West Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care and South West Academic Health Science Network) are leading this initiative to narrow the gap between research and practice in this urgent area of improvement through a programme of service change, evaluation and research. Multi-stakeholder engagement and co-design are core to the approach. A whole system measurement framework combines outcomes of importance to patients, practitioners and health organisations. Iterative and multi-level feedback helps to shape service change while collecting practice-based data to generate implementation knowledge for the delivery of P3C. The role of the research team is proving vital to support informed change and challenge organisational practice. The bidirectional flow of knowledge and evidence relies on the transitional positioning of researchers and research organisations.

Results

Extensive engagement and embedded researchers have led to strong collaborations across the region. Practice is beginning to show signs of change and data flow and exchange is taking place. However, working in this way is not without its challenges; progress has been slow in the development of a linked data set to allow us to assess impact innovations from a cost perspective. Trust is vital, takes time to establish and is dependent on the exchange of services and interactions. If collaborative action can foster P3C it will require sustained commitment from both research and practice. This approach is a radical departure from how policy, research and practice traditionally work, but one that we argue is now necessary to deal with the most complex health and social problems.

Bridging the discursive gap between lay and medical discourse in care coordination

For older people with multiple chronic co-morbidities, strategies to coordinate care depend heavily on information exchange. We analyse the information-sharing difficulties arising from differences between patients' oral narratives and medical sense-making; and whether a modified form of 'narrative medicine' might mitigate them. We systematically compared 66 general practice patients' own narratives of their health problems and care with the contents of their clinical records. Data were collected in England during 2012-13. Patients' narratives differed from the accounts in their medical record, especially the summary, regarding mobility, falls, mental health, physical frailty and its consequences for accessing care. Parts of patients' viewpoints were never formally encoded, parts were lost when clinicians de-coded it, parts supplemented, and sometimes the whole narrative was re-framed. These discrepancies appeared to restrict the patient record's utility even for GPs for the purposes of risk stratification, case management, knowing what other care-givers were doing, and coordinating care. The findings suggest combining the encoding/decoding theory of communication with inter-subjectivity and intentionality theories as sequential, complementary elements of an explanation of how patients communicate with clinicians. A revised form of narrative medicine might mitigate the discursive gap and its consequences for care coordination.

Is the co-location of GPs in primary care centres associated with a higher patient satisfaction? Evidence from a population survey in Italy

Background

Several countries have co-located General Practitioners (GPs) in Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with other health and social care professionals in order to improve integrated care. It is not clear whether the co-location of a multidisciplinary team actually facilitates a positive patient experience concerning GP care. The aim of this study was to verify whether the co-location of GPs in PCCs is associated positively with patient satisfaction with their GP when patients have experience of a multidisciplinary team. We also investigated whether patients who frequently use health services, due to their complex needs, benefitted the most from the co-location of a multidisciplinary team.

Methods

The study used data from a population survey carried out in Tuscany (central Italy) at the beginning of 2015 to evaluate the patients’ experience and satisfaction with their GPs. Multilevel linear regression models were implemented to verify the relationship between patient satisfaction and co-location. This key explanatory variable was measured by considering both the list of GPs working in PCCs and the answers of surveyed patients who had experienced the co-location of their GP in a multidisciplinary team. We also explored the effect modification on patient satisfaction due to the use of hospitalisation, access to emergency departments and visits with specialists, by performing the multilevel modelling on two strata of patient data: frequent and non-frequent health service users.

Results

A sample of 2025 GP patients were included in the study, 757 of which were patients of GPs working in a PCC. Patient satisfaction with their GP was generally positive. Results showed that having a GP working within a PCC and the experience of the co-located multidisciplinary team were associated with a higher satisfaction (p < 0.01). For non-frequent users of health services on the other hand, the co-location of multidisciplinary team in PCCs was not significantly associated with patient satisfaction, whereas for frequent users, the strength of relationships identified in the overall model increased (p < 0.01).

Conclusion

The co-location of GPs with other professionals and their joint working as experienced in PCCs seems to represent a greater benefit for patients, especially for those with complex needs who use primary care, hospitals, emergency care and specialized care frequently.