Towards an international taxonomy of integrated primary care: a Delphi consensus approach

Abstract

BackgroundDeveloping integrated service models in a primary care setting is considered an essential strategy for establishing a sustainable and affordable health care system. The Rainbow Model of Integrated Care (RMIC) describes the theoretical foundations of integrated primary care. The aim of this study is to refine the RMIC by developing a consensus-based taxonomy of key features.MethodsFirst, the appropriateness of previously identified key features was retested by conducting an international Delphi study that was built on the results of a previous national Delphi study. Second, categorisation of the features among the RMIC integrated care domains was assessed in a second international Delphi study. Finally, a taxonomy was constructed by the researchers based on the results of the three Delphi studies.ResultsThe final taxonomy consists of 21 key features distributed over eight integration domains which are organised into three main categories: scope (person-focused vs. population-based), type (clinical, professional, organisational and system) and enablers (functional vs. normative) of an integrated primary care service model.ConclusionsThe taxonomy provides a crucial differentiation that clarifies and supports implementation, policy formulation and research regarding the organisation of integrated primary care. Further research is needed to develop instruments based on the taxonomy that can reveal the realm of integrated primary care in practice.

Evaluation of DementiaNet, a network-based primary care innovation for community-dwelling patients with dementia: protocol for a longitudinal mixed methods multiple case study

“…§Continuous collection of data; †Data collected at start and after 12 and 24 months; ‡Data collected at one time point in a selected number of networks. References for the informal caregiver outcome instruments 37-46 . Model', 23 which includes eight items in three domains: (1) person-focused care, population-focused care; (2) clinical integration, professional integration, organisational integration, system integration and (3) functional integration, and normative integration. Each item is rated on four defined levels, ranging from (1) ad hoc, through (2) defined, and (3) controlled, to (4) synchronised.…”

An Instrument to Measure Maturity of Integrated Care: A First Validation Study

“…Many have implemented different types of integrated care programmes representing a diversity in their nature and scope of approaches [6]. This is not surprising since the transition to integrated care is a complex undertaking, while sufficient support of a systematic understanding of integration in health systems is scarce [789]. The complexity of integration is reflected in the definition of integrated care provided by Kodner [10, p. 12]: “[a] multi-level, multi-modal, demand driven and patient-centred strategy designed to address complex and costly health needs by achieving better coordination of services across the entire care continuum.…”

“…The complexity of integration is reflected in the definition of integrated care provided by Kodner [10, p. 12]: “[a] multi-level, multi-modal, demand driven and patient-centred strategy designed to address complex and costly health needs by achieving better coordination of services across the entire care continuum. Not an end in itself, integrated care is a means of optimizing system performance and attaining quality patient outcomes.” As a response to the call for the establishment of a common language and framework of integrated care to better understand integrated care and guide empirical research [1011], several studies have attempted to clarify the concepts underpinning integrated care [812]. …”

“…In particular, the conceptual framework of Valentijn et al can be used to aid an understanding of the concept of integrated care [8] and shows the complexity of what transformation to integrated care delivery entails. The framework identifies key elements for achieving integrated service delivery which are organised into six dimensions of integration.…”

Using Foucault: Genealogy, Governmentality and the Problem of Chronic Illness

“…The analytic perspective used offered a unique view of the contemporary 'problem' of chronic diseases. The broad fields of research that are concerned with chronic diseases and programs of care management tend to be dominated by evaluative and descriptive studies that focus on the need for reform and greater cost effectiveness (Braithwaite et al 2005;Valentijn et al 2015;Brown and McIntyre 2014). There is a shortage of critical and reflective studies that focus on "complex strategic relations" (Bacchi 2012, p. 1) that connect people and the changing ideas of health and disease.…”