Background Implementing innovative health service models in existing service systems is complicated and context dependent. Flexible assertive community treatment (FACT) is a multidisciplinary service model aimed at providing integrated care for people with severe mental illness. The model was developed in the Netherlands and is now used in several countries, such as Norway. The Norwegian service system is complex and fragmented, with challenges in collaboration. Limited research has been performed on FACT teams and other new integrative health service models as part of such systems. However, such knowledge is important for future adjustments of innovation processes and service systems. Our aim was to explore how FACT teams are integrated into the existing formal public service system, how they function and affect the system, and describe some influencing factors to this. We sought to address how service providers in the existing service system experience the functioning of FACT teams in the system. Methods Five focus group interviews were undertaken 3 years after the FACT teams were implemented. Forty service providers representing different services from both levels of administration (primary and specialist healthcare) from different Norwegian regions participated in this study. Team leaders of the FACT teams also participated. Service providers were recruited through purposeful sampling. Interviews were analysed using thematic text analysis. Results The analysis revealed five main themes regarding FACT teams: (1) They form a bridge between different services; (2) They collaborate with other services; (3) They undertake responsibility and reassure other services; (4) They do not close all gaps in service systems; and (5) They are part of a service system that hampers their functioning. Conclusions The FACT teams in this study contributed to positive changes in the existing service system. They largely contributed to less complex and fragmented systems by forming a bridge and undertaking responsibility in the system and by collaborating with and reassuring other services; this has reduced some gaps in the system. The way FACT teams function and needs of the existing system appear to have contributed positively to these findings. However, complexity and fragmentation of the system partly hamper functioning of the FACT teams.

This paper develops four propositions for the role of a tour-operator as the driver of innovations in a nature

This paper focuses on innovation in the rural tourism industry. The data is a survey including 133 Norwegian rural tourism enterprises. The operational definition of innovation in this study is quite similar to the one used in the European innovation studies, the Community Innovation Survey, conducted by Eurostat. The seven hypotheses in this study are deduced from the review of the literature. The survey indicates rather high rates of innovations among rural tourism enterprises even if the rates are somewhat lower than the average of other tourism enterprises in Norway. The rural tourism enterprises' innovative capacity is closely associated with the enterprises' involvement in cooperation, use of market-information systems, and actions taken to increase the employees' competence. Additionally, the enterprises with an exporting orientation generate more product innovations than other enterprises. Enterprises that acquire public grants have also on average implemented more product and market innovations compared with the rest of the enterprises. The findings give grounds for some practical recommendations. Finally, more research is needed due to the fact that research on innovation has rarely focused on small-scale, rural tourism enterprises.

No abstract

Introduction: To provide more integrated care, several countries have implemented the Flexible Assertive Community Treatment (FACT) model. However, this model does not guarantee full integration, especially in complex and fragmented service systems like in Norway. Hence, we investigated which barriers that might reduce the potential for integrated care in the Norwegian system, as described by staff in FACT teams, and how they adjust their way of working to increase the opportunities for integration. Methods: Online focus group interviews involving 35 staff members of five Norwegian FACT teams were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. The material was analysed using thematic text analysis. Results: Six themes described the barriers to integrated care in the service system: fragmentation, different legislation and digital systems, challenges in collaboration, bureaucracy and limited opening hours. Three themes described adjustments in the teams’ way of working to enhance integration: working as the responsible co-ordinator, being a collaborator, and the only entry channel into the service system. Conclusion: The FACT team staff described several barriers to integration within the system. However, they made some adjustments in their way of working that might provide opportunities for integrated care within complex and fragmented service systems.