Background To meet the needs of high-vulnerable families with severe and enduring problems across several life domains, professionals must improve their ability to provide integrated care timely and adequately. The aim of this study was to identify facilitators and barriers professionals encounter when providing integrated care. Methods Experiences and perspectives of 24 professionals from integrated care teams in the Netherlands were gathered by conducting semi-structured interviews. A theory-driven framework method was applied to systematically code the transcripts both deductively and inductively. Results There was a consensus among professionals regarding facilitators and barriers influencing their daily practice, leading to an in depth, thematic report of what facilitates and hinders integrated care. Themes covering the facilitators and barriers were related to early identification and broad assessment, multidisciplinary expertise, continuous pathways, care provision, autonomy of professionals, and evaluation of care processes. Conclusions Professionals emphasized the need for flexible support across several life domains to meet the needs of high-vulnerable families. Also, there should be a balance between the use of guidelines and a professional’s autonomy to tailor support to families’ needs. Other recommendations include the need to improve professionals’ ability in timely stepping up to more intensive care and scaling down to less restrictive support, and to further our insight in risk factors and needs of these families.

Introduction: Integrated care for children and their families is often organized in multidisciplinary teams. In these teams, evaluation and reflection during Multidisciplinary Team Discussions (MTDs) are fundamental to learning, improving interprofessional collaboration, and increasing the quality of care. The effectiveness of MTDs varies widely in practice. Therefore, this study's objective was to identify facilitators and barriers for evaluation and reflection in MTDs, and concurrently formulate practical recommendations for professionals to improve their MTDs.Methods: This study's action research cycle consisted of a qualitative component to identify facilitators and barriers to evaluation and reflection in MTDs. We observed MTDs in multidisciplinary teams and interviewed professionals, parents, managers, and local policy makers. Concurrently, practical recommendations were iteratively developed during project team meetings, learning sessions, and a focus group.Results: Nine practical recommendations were formulated based on the identified facilitators and barriers, including preparatory activities to ensure purpose, timing, and relevant stakeholder involvement; specific points of attention during MTDs to ensure effectiveness; and tracking follow up steps after MTDs to ensure a learning process. Conclusion:The practical recommendations should be incorporated in daily practice to support professionals in Youth Care to increase satisfaction and improve effectiveness of evaluation and reflection during MTDs.