Many countries are experimenting with new models to better integrate care; yet, innovative care models are often implemented as time-limited, localised projects with limited impact on service delivery more broadly. This paper seeks to understand the processes behind successful projects that achieved some form of 'routinisation' and informed systemwide integrated care strategies. It draws on detailed case studies of three integrated care experiments: the 'Integrated effort for people living with chronic diseases' project in Denmark; the Gesundes Kinzigtal network in Germany; and Zio, a care group in the Maastricht region in the Netherlands. It explores how they were developed, implemented and sustained, and how they impacted the wider system context. All three models implicitly or explicitly adopted processes shown to be conducive to the dissemination of innovations, including dedicated time and resources, support and advocacy, leadership and management, stakeholder involvement, communication and networks, adaptation to local context and feedback. Each showed robust evidence of improvements on a number of service and patient outcomes and these findings were central to their wider impacts, shaping country-wide integrated care polices. However, the wider dissemination of projects occurred in an incremental and somewhat haphazard way. To further redesign health and social care a more formal strategy, alongside resources, may thus be needed to provide funders and providers with genuine incentives to invest in new business models of care. There remains a crucial need for better understanding of specific local conditions that influence implementation and sustainability to enable translation to other contexts and settings.
Objective: To assess the effects of joint consultation on referral behaviour of general practitioners (GPs) in a prospective cohort study. Methods: All patients with rheumatological complaints that 17 participating GPs, from the area of the University Hospital Maastricht, wanted to refer during a two year inclusion period (n=166) were eligible for inclusion. These patients were either referred to the outpatient clinic, or presented at a joint consultation held every six weeks at the practice of the GP, where groups of three GPs presented their patients to a visiting, consulting rheumatologist. The number of patients referred by each GP a year at the end of the trial, comparing participating and non-participating GPs, was the main outcome measure. Results: During two years of inclusion, the 17 participating GPs presented 166 patients. The number of patients referred by each GP a year decreased for the participating GPs by 62% at the end of the whole study. By contrast, non-participating GPs maintained the same rate of referral. The range of diagnoses remained proportionally the same throughout the study, with the exception of fibromyalgia. The referral rate of this diagnosis decreased significantly (p=0.001). Conclusions: Joint consultation seems to be a good strategy in influencing the referral behaviour of GPs in the area of rheumatology. The decrease in referral is substantial and can subsequently lead to a reduction of waiting lists.
Objective. To evaluate the substitution of specialized rheumatology nurses for rheumatologists in diagnosing fibromyalgia (FM).Methods. Referred patients with FM symptoms (n ؍ 193) were randomized to a study group diagnosed by a specialized rheumatology nurse (SRN group, n ؍ 97) or to a control group diagnosed by a rheumatologist (RMT group, n ؍ 96). SRN patients were seen within 3 weeks by a nurse who took structured history and initiated routine laboratory tests. During a 5-minute supervision session, the rheumatologist was informed by the nurse about medical history, performed a brief physical examination, and confirmed or rejected the nurse's diagnosis. RMT patients were seen by a rheumatologist after a regular waiting period of 3 months. Outcome measures were initial agreement between the nurse and rheumatologist in the SRN group, final diagnosis after 12-24 months of followup, patient satisfaction, and diagnostic costs. Results. The mean waiting time after randomization was 2.8 and 12.1 weeks in the SRN and RMT groups, respectively. Eight RMT patients cancelled their appointments because of the waiting time. Excellent agreement ( ؍ 0.91) between rheumatologists and nurses was found. After 12-24 months of followup, none of the initial diagnoses were recalled in either group. SRN patients were significantly more satisfied than RMT patients. Mean diagnostic costs were lower in the SRN group (€219) than in the RMT group (€281) (95% uncertainty interval €؊103, €؊20). Conclusion. Substituting specialized nurses for rheumatologists in the diagnostic process of FM is a trustworthy and successful approach that saves waiting time, provides greater patient satisfaction, and is cost-effective.
The objective of this study is to examine the feasibility and long-term results of a 12-week multidisciplinary part-time daycare intervention with five aftercare meetings in fibromyalgia (FM) patients. One hundred and five patients diagnosed with FM started with a multidisciplinary intervention and were assessed for feasibility, functional status (Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire [FIQ]), and quality of life (EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D]) until 9 months after completion. The program consisted of sociotherapy, physiotherapy, psychotherapy, and creative arts therapy. Drop-out rate was 4.8%. The attendance rate of 100 patients who completed the 12-week program and five aftercare meetings was high (97.4%), just like patient and therapist satisfaction (8.2 on a 10 points scale). After the 12-week program, statistically significant improvement was seen in both FIQ and EQ-5D. This improvement was maintained after 9 months of follow-up. On average, moderate improvements were observed. Our 12-week multidisciplinary part-time daycare intervention with five aftercare meetings for FM patients is feasible and it is indicated that it can lead to sustained improvement in functional status and quality of life.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.