Care Coordination Using a Shared Plan of Care Approach: From Model to Practice

McAllister, Jeanne W.; Keehn, Rebecca McNally; Rodgers, Rylin; Lock, Thomas M.

doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2018.09.009

Cited by 24 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The importance of sharing information between health sectors and with patients is also well recognised [35] and the WSICP focussed strongly on connecting primary and secondary care practitioners and informing patients. Shared care plans in community care and action plans from hospital specialists are considered effective [36, 37] and were central strategies for enhancing communication in the WSICP. However, challenges with information technology reduced the impact of these strategies and these problems persisted through our evaluation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating health care in Australia: a qualitative evaluation

Trankle

Usherwood

Abbott

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWith aging populations, a growing prevalence of chronic illnesses, higher expectations for quality care and rising costs within limited health budgets, integration of healthcare is seen as a solution to these challenges. Integrated healthcare aims to overcome barriers between primary and secondary care and other disconnected patient services to improve access, continuity and quality of care. Many people in Australia are admitted to hospital for chronic illnesses that could be prevented or managed in the community. Western Sydney has high rates of diabetes, heart and respiratory diseases and the NSW State Ministry of Health has implemented key strategies through the Western Sydney Integrated Care Program (WSICP) to enhance primary care and the outcomes and experiences of patients with these illnesses.MethodsWe aimed to investigate the WSICP’s effectiveness through a qualitative evaluation focused on the 10 WSICP strategies using a framework analysis. We administered 125 in-depth interviews in two rounds over 12 months with 83 participants including patients and their carers, care facilitators, hospital specialists and nurses, allied health professionals, general practitioners (GPs) and primary care nurses, and program managers. Most participants (71%) were interviewed twice. We analysed data within a framework describing how strategies were implemented and used, the experiences around these, their perceived value, facilitators and barriers, and participant-identified suggestions for improvement.ResultsCare facilitators helped patients access services within the hospital and in primary care and connected general practices with hospital specialists and services. Rapid access and stabilisation clinics with their patient hotlines assisted patients and carers to self-manage chronic illness while connecting GPs to specialists through the GP support-line. Action plans from the hospital informed GPs and their shared care plans which could be accessed by other community health professionals and patients. HealthPathways provided GPs with local, evidence-based guidelines for managing patients. Difficulties persisted in effective widespread access to shared records and electronic communication across sectors.ConclusionsThe combined WSICP strategies improved patient and carer experience of healthcare and capacity of GPs to provide care in the community. Information sharing required longer-term investment and support, though benefits were evident by the end of our research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating health care in Australia: a qualitative evaluation

Trankle

Usherwood

Abbott

et al. 2019

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adaptability and flexibility of services, investigated concerning the decentralisation of power and higher response to users' need in Dhirathiti (2019) [76] and McAllister et al (2018) [77], have been measured, respectively, with ad hoc items and a validated scale. While these dimensions in the health sector have been mainly studied with micro and meso perspectives investigating changes at the patient-professional and provider levels, in the public sector, the analysis shifts at the government macro level by investigating the reorganisation of the governmental structure regarding the decentralisation of power [76].…”

Section: Outcomes For Providermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the public domain, Sanina et al (2020) [66] used an ad hoc scale for assessing students' satisfaction with the co-produced activities in which they were involved. Within metrics used to assess informal caregivers' satisfaction, the "adjusted version of the caregivers' satisfaction with inpatient stroke care (C-SASC, [115]) 11-item scale" [116] and Family Experiences with Coordination of Care (FECC, [117]) Measure Set [77] have been used.…”

Section: Outcomes For Lay-actormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In assessing the effects on the community, the public findings bring important insights to the health field, especially in measuring the value for society. While health findings focus on effects related to community health and well-being [77], public ones broaden the perspective by investigating the accessibility and economic affordability of the service and environmental effects. [77], [80] *, [156] The asterisk * indicates publications in public domain.…”

Section: Outcome For Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While health findings focus on effects related to community health and well-being [77], public ones broaden the perspective by investigating the accessibility and economic affordability of the service and environmental effects. [77], [80] *, [156] The asterisk * indicates publications in public domain.…”

Section: Outcome For Communitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Co-Production Performance Evaluation in Healthcare. A Systematic Review of Methods, Tools and Metrics

Marsilio

Fusco

Gheduzzi

et al. 2021

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-produced practices and publications in the healthcare sector are gaining momentum, since they can be a useful tool in addressing the sustainability and resilience challenges of health systems. However, the investigation of positive and, mainly, negative outcomes is still confused and fragmented, and above all, a comprehensive knowledge of the metrics used to assess these outcomes is lacking. To fill this gap, this study aims to systematically review the extant literature to map the methods, tools and metrics used to empirically evaluate co-production in health services. The search took place in six databases: Scopus, Web of Science, Psych INFO, PubMed, Cochrane and CINAHL. A total of 2311 articles were screened and 203 articles were included in the analysis, according to PRISMA guidelines. Findings show that outcomes are mainly investigated through qualitative methods and from the lay actor or provider perspective. Moreover, the detailed categorisation of the quantitative measures found offers a multidimensional performance measurement system and highlights the impact areas where research is needed to develop and test new measures. Findings should also promote improvements in empirical data collection on the multiple faceted co-produced activities and spur the consciousness of the adoption of sustainable co-productive initiatives.

show abstract