Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background As the organisation of health and social care in England moves rapidly towards greater integration, the resulting systems and teams will require distinctive leadership. However, little is known about how the effective leadership of these teams and systems can be supported and improved. In particular, there is relatively little understanding of how effective leadership across integrated care teams and systems may be enacted, the contexts in which this might take place and the subsequent implications this has on integrated care. Objective This realist review developed and refined programme theories of leadership of integrated health and social care teams and systems, exploring what works, for whom and in what circumstances. Design The review utilised a realist synthesis approach, informed by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards, to explore existing literature on the leadership of integrated care teams and systems, complemented by ongoing stakeholder consultation. Empirical evidence specifically addressing leadership of integrated teams or services was limited, with only 36 papers included in the review. The evidence collected from these 36 papers was synthesised to identify and build a comprehensive description of the mechanisms of leadership of integrated teams and systems and their associated contexts and outcomes. Consultation with key stakeholders with a range of expertise throughout the process ensured that the review remained grounded in the reality of health and social care delivery and addressed practice and policy challenges. Results Evidence was identified for seven potentially important components of leadership in integrated care teams and systems. These were ‘inspiring intent to work together’, ‘creating the conditions to work together’, ‘balancing multiple perspectives’, ‘working with power’, ‘taking a wider view’, ‘a commitment to learning and development’ and ‘clarifying complexity’. No empirical evidence was found for an eighth mechanism, ‘fostering resilience’, although stakeholders felt that this was potentially an important, long-term component of leadership. A key message of the review was that empirical research often focused on the importance of who the leader of an integrated team or service was (i.e. their personality traits and characteristics) rather than what they did (i.e. the specific role that they played in integrated working), although stakeholders considered that a focus on leader personality was not sufficient. Other key messages highlighted the way in which power and influence are used by integrated service leaders and identified the hierarchies between health and social care which complicate the leading of integrated teams and systems. Limitations Evidence specifically addressing leadership of integrated care teams and systems was limited and lacking in detail, which restricted the degree to which definitive conclusions could be drawn around what works, for whom and in what circumstances. Conclusions Research into the leadership of integrated care teams and systems is limited and underdeveloped, with ideas often reverting to existing framings of leadership in which teams and organisations are less complex. In making explicit some of the assumptions about how leaders lead integrated care teams and systems this review has contributed significant new perspectives, offering fresh theoretical grounding that can be built on, developed and tested further. Future work By making explicit some of the assumptions underlying the leadership of integrated care teams and systems, this review has generated new perspectives that can be built on, developed and tested further. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018119291. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background As the organisation of health and social care in England moves rapidly towards greater integration, the resulting systems and teams will require distinctive leadership. However, little is known about how the effective leadership of these teams and systems can be supported and improved. In particular, there is relatively little understanding of how effective leadership across integrated care teams and systems may be enacted, the contexts in which this might take place and the subsequent implications this has on integrated care. Objective This realist review developed and refined programme theories of leadership of integrated health and social care teams and systems, exploring what works, for whom and in what circumstances. Design The review utilised a realist synthesis approach, informed by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards, to explore existing literature on the leadership of integrated care teams and systems, complemented by ongoing stakeholder consultation. Empirical evidence specifically addressing leadership of integrated teams or services was limited, with only 36 papers included in the review. The evidence collected from these 36 papers was synthesised to identify and build a comprehensive description of the mechanisms of leadership of integrated teams and systems and their associated contexts and outcomes. Consultation with key stakeholders with a range of expertise throughout the process ensured that the review remained grounded in the reality of health and social care delivery and addressed practice and policy challenges. Results Evidence was identified for seven potentially important components of leadership in integrated care teams and systems. These were ‘inspiring intent to work together’, ‘creating the conditions to work together’, ‘balancing multiple perspectives’, ‘working with power’, ‘taking a wider view’, ‘a commitment to learning and development’ and ‘clarifying complexity’. No empirical evidence was found for an eighth mechanism, ‘fostering resilience’, although stakeholders felt that this was potentially an important, long-term component of leadership. A key message of the review was that empirical research often focused on the importance of who the leader of an integrated team or service was (i.e. their personality traits and characteristics) rather than what they did (i.e. the specific role that they played in integrated working), although stakeholders considered that a focus on leader personality was not sufficient. Other key messages highlighted the way in which power and influence are used by integrated service leaders and identified the hierarchies between health and social care which complicate the leading of integrated teams and systems. Limitations Evidence specifically addressing leadership of integrated care teams and systems was limited and lacking in detail, which restricted the degree to which definitive conclusions could be drawn around what works, for whom and in what circumstances. Conclusions Research into the leadership of integrated care teams and systems is limited and underdeveloped, with ideas often reverting to existing framings of leadership in which teams and organisations are less complex. In making explicit some of the assumptions about how leaders lead integrated care teams and systems this review has contributed significant new perspectives, offering fresh theoretical grounding that can be built on, developed and tested further. Future work By making explicit some of the assumptions underlying the leadership of integrated care teams and systems, this review has generated new perspectives that can be built on, developed and tested further. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018119291. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 7. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Background Distributed Leadership (DL) has been suggested as being helpful when different health care professionals and patients need to work together across professional and organizational boundaries to provide integrated care (IC). This study explores whether General Practitioners (GPs) adopt leadership actions that transcend organizational boundaries to provide IC for patients and discusses whether the GPs’ leadership actions in collaboration with patients and health care professionals contribute to DL. Methods We interviewed GPs (n = 20) of elderly multimorbid patients in a municipality in Norway. A qualitative interpretive case design and Gioia methodology was applied to the collection and analysis of data from semi-structured interviews. Results GPs are involved in three processes when contributing to IC for elderly multimorbidity patients; the process of creating an integrated patient experience, the workflow process and the process of maneuvering organizational structures and medical culture. GPs take part in processes comparable to configurations of DL described in the literature. Patient micro-context and health care macro-context are related to observed configurations of DL. Conclusion Initiating or moving between different configurations of DL in IC requires awareness of patient context and the health care macro-context, of ways of working, capacity of digital tools and use of health care personnel.
Background: In Northwestern Switzerland, recent legislation tackles the needs of community-dwelling older adults by creating Information and Advice Centers (IACs). Previous studies reported difficulties in reaching community-dwelling older adults for community-based programs. We aimed to: 1) systematically identify implementation strategies to promote the IAC among community care providers, older adults and informal caregivers; 2) monitor the delivery of these strategies by the IAC management; and 3) describe the impact of those strategies on reach of community-dwelling older adults. This study was conducted as part of the TRANS-SENIOR project. Methods: As part of the INSPIRE feasibility assessment, we conducted a pre-experimental post-test study between March and September 2022. The sample included 65+ older adults visiting/calling or being referred to the IAC for the first time. Implementation strategies were selected using implementation mapping and organized in bundles for each group of community care providers and older adults/caregivers. Our evaluation included: estimation of fidelity to the delivery of implementation strategies and bundles by the IAC management and their coverage; referral source of older adults to the IAC; and impact of the strategies on reach of the IAC on the 65+ population living in the care region. Adaptations to the strategies were documented using the FRAME-IS. Descriptive statistics were calculated and reported. Results: Seven implementation strategies were selected and organized in bundles for each community care provider and older adults and their caregivers. The lowest fidelity score was found in implementation strategies selected for nursing homes whereas the highest score corresponded to strategies targeting older adults and caregivers. “Informational visits” was the strategy with the lowest coverage (2.5% for nursing homes and 10.5% for hospitals and specialized clinics). The main referral sources were self-referrals and referrals by caregivers, followed by nursing homes. The IAC reach among the 65+ population was 5.4%. Conclusion: We demonstrated the use of implementation mapping to select implementation strategies to reach community-dwelling older adults. The reach was low suggesting that higher fidelity to the delivery of the strategies, and reflection on the causal pathway of the implementation strategies might be needed.
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.