Search results

In the US, a growing number of organizations and industries are seeking to affirm their commitment to and efforts around diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) as recent events have increased attention to social inequities. As health care organizations are considering new ways to incorporate DEI initiatives within their workforce, the anticipated result of these efforts is a reduction in health inequities that have plagued our country for centuries. Unfortunately, there are few frameworks to guide these efforts because few successfully link organizational DEI initiatives with health equity outcomes. The purpose of this chapter is to review existing scholarship and evidence using an organizational lens to examine how health care organizations can advance DEI initiatives in the pursuit of reducing or eliminating health inequities. First, this chapter defines important terms of DEI and health equity in health care. Next, we describe the methods for our narrative review. We propose a model for understanding health care organizational activity and its impact on health inequities based in organizational learning that includes four interrelated parts: intention, action, outcomes, and learning. We summarize the existing scholarship in each of these areas and provide recommendations for enhancing future research. Across the body of knowledge in these areas, disciplinary and other silos may be the biggest barrier to knowledge creation and knowledge transfer. Moving forward, scholars and practitioners should seek to collaborate further in their respective efforts to achieve health equity by creating formalized initiatives with linkages between practice and research communities.

The purpose of this paper is to present the findings of an early stage, exploratory case study of a proposed housing with care initiative (the Crichton Care Campus (CCC)). This sought the perspectives of a range of key stakeholders on the proposed model and how it might be best realised. The analyses of these findings show their relevance to debates on integrated housing with care, and reflect on the methodology used and its potential relevance to similar projects.

The study used a transactive planning approach, where grounded views are sought from a variety of stakeholders. A purposive sample identified informants from relevant health, social care and housing organisations and nine semi-structured interviews were conducted. These were transcribed and data analysis was undertaken on an “interactive” basis, relating care theory to empirical expressions.

The authors identify two contrasting orientations – inclusive “community-oriented” and professional “service-oriented”. This distinction provides the basis for a rudimentary conceptual map which can continue to be used in the planning process. Two significant variables within the conceptual map were the extent to which CCC should be intergenerational and as such, the degree to which care should come from formalised and self-care/informal sources. The potential to achieve an integrated approach was high with stakeholders across all sectors fully supporting the CCC concept and agreeing on the need for it to have a mixed tenure basis and include a range of non-care amenities.

This paper offers originality in two respects. Methodologically, it describes an attempt to undertake early stage care planning using a needs led transactive methodology. In more practical terms, it also offers an innovative environment for considering any approach to care planning that actively seeks integration – based on an acknowledgement of complexity, a variety of perspectives and possible conflicts. The authors propose that the concepts of “community-orientation” and “service-orientation” are used as a helpful basis for planning negotiations, making implicit divergences explicit and thus better delineated.