Search results

A range of strategies to improve pharmaceutical care has been implemented by population health management (PHM) initiatives. However, which strategies generate the desired outcomes is largely unknown. The purpose of this paper is to identify guiding principles underlying collaborative strategies to improve pharmaceutical care and the contextual factors and mechanisms through which these principles operate.

The evaluation was informed by a realist methodology examining the links between PHM strategies, their outcomes and the contexts and mechanisms by which these strategies operate. Guiding principles were identified by grouping context-specific strategies with specific outcomes.

In total, ten guiding principles were identified: create agreement and commitment based on a long-term vision; foster cooperation and representation at the board level; use layered governance structures; create awareness at all levels; enable interpersonal links at all levels; create learning environments; organize shared responsibility; adjust financial strategies to market contexts; organize mutual gains; and align regional agreements with national policies and regulations. Contextual factors such as shared savings influenced the effectiveness of the guiding principles. Mechanisms by which these guiding principles operate were, for instance, fostering trust and creating a shared sense of the problem.

The guiding principles highlight how collaboration can be stimulated to improve pharmaceutical care while taking into account local constraints and possibilities. The interdependency of these principles necessitates effectuating them together in order to realize the best possible improvements and outcomes.

This is the first study using a realist approach to understand the guiding principles underlying collaboration to improve pharmaceutical care.

The purpose of this paper is to gain insight into how population health management (PHM) strategies can successfully integrate and reorganize public health, health care, social care and community services to improve population health and quality of care while reducing costs growth, this study compared four large-scale transformation programs: Greater Manchester Devolution, Vancouver Healthy City Strategy, Gen-H Cincinnati and Gesundes Kinzigtal.

Following the realist methodology, this explorative comparative case-study investigated PHM initiatives' key features and participants' experiences of developing such initiatives. A semi-structured interview guideline based on a theoretical framework for PHM guided the interviews with stakeholders (20) from different sectors.

Five initial program theories important to the development of PHM were formulated: (1) create trust in a shared vision and understanding of the PHM rationale to establish stakeholders' commitment to the partnership; (2) create shared ownership for achieving the initiative's goals; (3) create shared financial interest that reduces perceived financial risks to provide financial sustainability; (4) create a learning environment to secure initiative's credibility and (5) create citizens' and professionals' awareness of the required attitudes and behaviours.

The study highlights initial program theories for the implementation of PHM including different strategies and structures underpinning the initiatives. These insights provide a deeper understanding of how large-scale transformation could be developed.

Changes in demographics and disease patterns are challenging health and care systems across the world. In England, national policies have reset the direction of travel for the NHS. Collaboration, integration and personalisation are intended to become prime principles and drivers for new models of care. Central to this is the concept of population health management. This has emerged, internationally, as a method to improve population health. Fundamental for population health management to succeed is the use of integrated data, analytics combined with professional insight and the adoption of a learning health system culture. This agenda reaches beyond the NHS in England and the public health profession to embrace a broad range of stakeholders. By drawing on international experience and early experience of implementation in the United Kingdom, the potential for health and care systems in England to become world leading in population health management is explored.

A viewpoint paper.

Population health management is a major change in the way health and care systems look at the challenges they are facing. It makes what is happening to individuals, across the continuum of care, the essence for insight and action. The NHS has the components for success and the potential to become world leading in delivery of population health management as part of its integrated care agenda.

This is the first viewpoint paper to set out how population health management contributes to the integrated care agenda in the NHS.

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether some aspects of the distinctive Mayo Clinic care model could be translated into English National Health Service (NHS) hospital settings, to overcome the fragmented and episodic nature of non-emergency patient care.

The authors used a rapid review to assess the literature on integrated clinical care in hospital settings and critical analysis of links between Mayo Clinic’s care model and the organisation’s performance and associated patient outcomes.

The literature directly concerned with Mayo Clinic’s distinctive ethos and approach to patient care is limited in scope and largely confined to “grey” sources or to authors and institutions with links to Mayo Clinic. The authors found only two peer-reviewed articles which offer critical analysis of the contribution of the Mayo model to the performance of the organisation.

Mayo Clinic is not the only organisation to practice integrated, in-hospital clinical care; however, it is widely regarded as an exemplar.

There are barriers to implementing a Mayo-style model in English NHS hospitals, but they are not insurmountable and could lead to much better coordination of care for some patients.

The study shows that there is an appetite among NHS patients and staff for better coordinated, multi-specialty care within NHS hospitals.

In the English NHS integrated care generally aims to improve coordination between primary, community and secondary care, but problems remain of fragmented care for non-emergency hospital patients. Use of a Mayo-type care model, within hospital settings, could offer significant benefits to this patient group, particularly for multi-morbid patients.

Following publication of a new vision for the English National Health Service (NHS) in 2014, known as the NHS Five-Year Forward View, a Vanguard programme was introduced by NHS England charged with the task of designing and delivering a range of new care models (NCMs) aimed at tackling deep-seated problems of a type facing all health systems to a greater or lesser degree. Drawing upon recent theoretical developments on the multilevel nature of context, we explore factors shaping the implementation of five NCM initiatives in the North East of England.

Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews (66 in total) between December 2016 and May 2017 with key informants at each site and a detailed review of Trusts' internal documents and policies related to the implementation of each NCM. Our analysis explores factors shaping the implementation of five NCM pilot sites as they touched on the multiple levels of context ranging from the macro policy level to the micro-level setting of workforce redesign.

It is far too early to conclude with any confidence that a successful outcome for the NCM programme will be forthcoming although the NHS Long-Term Plan seeks to build on the earlier vision set out in the Five-Year Forward View. Early indications show some signs of promise, especially where there is evidence of the ground having been prepared and changes already being put in place prior to the official launch of NCM initiatives. At the same time our findings demonstrate that all five pilot sites experienced, and were subject to, unrealistic pressure placed upon them to deliver outcomes.

Our findings demonstrate the need for a deeper understanding of the multilevel nature of context by exploring factors shaping the implementation of five NCMs in the North East of England. Exploring the wider national policy context is desirable as well as understanding the perceptions of front-line staff and service users in order to establish the degree of alignment or, conversely, to identify where policy and practice are at risk of pushing and pulling against each other.

The Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project identified the different models of primary care that exist for children, examined the particular attributes that might be different from those directed at adults and considered how these models might be appraised. The project took the multiple and interrelated dimensions of primary care and simplified them into a conceptual framework for appraisal. A general description of the models in existence in all 30 countries of the EU and EEA countries, focusing on lead practitioner, financial and regulatory and service provision classifications, was created. We then used the WHO ‘building blocks’ for high-performing health systems as a starting point for identifying a good system for children. The building blocks encompass safe and good quality services from an educated and empowered workforce, providing good data systems, access to all necessary medical products, prevention and treatments, and a service that is adequately financed and well led. An extensive search of the literature failed to identify a suitable appraisal framework for MOCHA, because none of the frameworks focused on child primary care in its own right. This led the research team to devise an alternative conceptualisation, at the heart of which is the core theme of child centricity and ecology, and the need to focus on delivery to the child through the life course. The MOCHA model also focuses on the primary care team and the societal and environmental context of the primary care system.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges that are experienced by staff responsible for commissioning liaison psychiatry services and to establish if these are shared by other health professionals.

Using a mixed-methods design, the findings from a mental health commissioner workshop (n = 12) were used to construct a survey that was distributed to health care professionals using an opportunistic framework (n = 98).

Four key themes emerged from the workshop, which was tested using the survey. The importance of secure funding; a better understanding of health care systems and pathways; partnership working and co-production and; access to mental health clinical information in general hospitals. There was broad convergence between commissioners, mental health clinicians and managers, except in relation to gathering and sharing of data. This suggests that poor communication between professionals is of concern.

There were a small number of survey respondents (n = 98). The sampling used an opportunistic framework that targeted commissioner and clinician forums. Using an opportunistic framework, the sample may not be representative. Additionally, multiple pairwise comparisons were conducted during the analysis of the survey responses, increasing the risk that significant results were found by chance.

A number of steps were identified that could be applied in practice. These mainly related to the importance of collecting and communicating data and co-production with commissioners in the design, development and monitoring of liaison psychiatry services.

This is the first study that has specifically considered the challenges associated with the commissioning of liaison psychiatry services.

Self-efficacy, or a person’s belief in his/her ability to perform specific tasks, has been correlated with workplace performance and role adjustments. Despite its relevance, and numerous studies of it in the management literature, evidence regarding its function in professionals employed in hybrid roles, such as doctor-managers, is lacking. The aim of this study was to fill this gap by exploring the mediating effect of physicians’ managerial attitude on the relationship between their self-efficacy and workplace performance.

Primary and secondary data from 126 doctor-managers were obtained from the Italian National Health Service. A structural equation modeling approach was used for analysis.

This study’s results provide for the first time empirical evidence about a surprisingly little-analyzed topic: how physicians’ managerial attitude mediates the relationship between their self-efficacy and workplace performance. The study offers important evidence both for scholars and organizations.

This study’s results provide valuable input for the human resources management of hybrid roles in professional-based organizations, suggesting a systematic provision of feedback about doctor-managers’ performance, the adoption of a competence approach for their recruitment, and a new design of doctor-managers’ career paths.

The authors provide new evidence about the importance of managerial traits for accountable healthcare organizations, documenting that behavioral traits of physicians enrolled into managerial roles matter for healthcare organizations success.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on research evidence and practice experience of transforming primary care to a more integrated and holistic model.

It is based on a scoping review which has been guided by primary care stakeholders and synthesises research evidence and practice experience from ten international case studies.

Adopting an inter-professional, community-orientated and population-based primary care model requires a fundamental transformation of thinking about professional roles, relationships and responsibilities. Team-based approaches can replicate existing power dynamics unless medical clinicians are willing to embrace less authoritarian leadership styles. Engagement of patients and communities is often limited due to a lack of capacity and belief that will make an impact. Internal (relationships, cultures, experience of improvement) and external (incentives, policy intentions, community pressure) contexts can encourage or derail transformation efforts.

Transformation requires a co-ordinated programme that incorporates the following elements – external facilitation of change; developing clinical and non-clinical leaders; learning through training and reflection; engaging community and professional stakeholders; transitional funding; and formative and summative evaluation.

This paper combines research evidence and international practice experience to guide future programmes to transform primary care.

The purpose of this study is to identify best practices for innovative primary care models and to describe a potential future primary care (PC) model for Texas to address the burden of chronic disease in a population-based approach.

A systematic literature review was conducted and identified 1,880 published records through PubMed using 26 search terms. After abstract and full-text review, 70 articles remained as potential models.

Although there is already a severe shortage of physicians in Texas, emerging practice patterns and choices among physicians are likely to erode access to primary care services in the state. Health-care leaders are encouraged to consider models such as complex adaptive systems for team-based care, pharmacist hypertension care management program and combined nurse-led care management with group visit structure.

As with any study, this research has its limitations; for example, models that might work in one state, or under a unique state-funded academic medical center, might not be “do-able” in another state within the nuances of a different funding mechanism.

Results of this research provide a model for implementing IPCM for the state of Texas first and will guide IPCM planning and implementation in other states.

This study is “land grant-centric” and focused on carrying out the mission of a major, top-tier research university with an emerging college of medicine at an academic medical center.