Search results

Healthcare services in the USA have been described as being fragmented and uncoordinated. Integrated delivery systems are frequently promoted as being instrumental in efforts to improve the coordination of care and, thus, enhancing the quality of clinical care and patient services while ensuring optimum cost‐efficiencies. This study seeks to analyze and compare the performance of hospitals participating in highly integrated systems with non‐integrated hospitals based on outcome measures involving hospital performance.

The study compares the performance of 50 flagship hospitals participating in the most highly integrated delivery systems in the USA with a representative sample of non‐system hospitals utilizing one‐way analysis of variance. The comparative analysis was based on three key performance measures; clinical quality of medical care, patient satisfaction, and cost‐efficiency considerations.

The results of the review demonstrate that there is a statistically significant positive difference between the clinical quality performance of the highly integrated hospitals compared with the quality performance of non‐highly integrated facilities. No difference was identified between the two sample groups of hospitals for the performance measures related to patient satisfaction or cost‐efficiencies.

The study is an attempt to evaluate the implications and effectiveness of integration within the health care delivery system. It suggests that integrated delivery systems may provide the organization structure appropriate to help support and enhance the quality of clinical care for patients.

The theme of this volume is reorganizing health care delivery systems: problems of managed care and other models of health care delivery. The volume contains 11 papers, organized into four sections. The sections cover, in order, managed care issues and organizational features, special groups of patients and health issues, lessons from other countries, and broader policy concerns and health insurance reform. Issues of how to best organize a health care delivery system are not new, but the amount of interest in this topic in the U.S. (as well as in other countries) has grown in recent decades. Reorganizing health care delivery systems is a concern of many of the systems of the world, and this volume contains some papers from countries other than the U.S., although the majority of the papers do relate issues to the U.S. health care delivery system. While the majority of the papers in this volume relate to structural and organizational factors, the impact of individual patients is not neglected. One section focuses very much on more specialized groups of patients, and several other papers use surveys of patients or other individual level data as part of their discussion of these issues. Before discussing the specific papers briefly, it is useful to review some material about the organization of the health care delivery system, especially within the U.S. This includes some discussion of how issues of organization of care and special forms of delivering care such as managed care have become major issues in the U.S. health care system at this point in time.

Integrated health care delivery (IHCD), as a major issue of managed care, was considered the panacea to rising health care costs. In theory it would simultaneously provide high-quality and continuous care. However, owing to the backlash of managed care at the turn of the century many health care providers today refrain from using further integrative activities. Based on transaction cost economics, this chapter investigates why IHCD is deemed appropriate in certain circumstances and why it failed in the past. It explores the new understanding of IHCD, which focuses on actual integration through virtual integration instead of aggregation of health care entities. Current success factors of virtually integrated hybrid structures, which have been evaluated in a long-term case study conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area from July 2001 to September 2002, will elucidate the further development of IHCD and the implications for other industrialized countries, such as Germany.

To examine the evolution of health care integration strategies and associated conceptualization and practice through a review and synthesis of over 25 years of international academic research and literature.

A search of the health sciences literature was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. A total of 114 articles were identified for inclusion and thematically analyzed using a strategy content model for systems-level integration.

Six major, inter-related shifts in integration strategies were identified: (1) from a focus on horizontal integration to an emphasis on vertical integration; (2) from acute care and institution-centered models of integration to a broader focus on community-based health and social services; (3) from economic arguments for integration to an emphasis on improving quality of care and creating value; (4) from evaluations of integration using an organizational perspective to an emerging interest in patient-centered measures; (5) from a focus on modifying organizational and environmental structures to an emphasis on changing ways of working and influencing underlying cultural attitudes and norms; and (6) from integration for all patients within defined regions to a strategic focus on integrating care for specific populations. We propose that underlying many of these shifts is a growing recognition of the value of understanding health care delivery and integration as processes situated in Complex-Adaptive Systems (CAS).

This review builds a descriptive framework against which to assess, compare, and track integration strategies over time.

The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) and digitization of health data over the past decade is ushering in the next generation of digital health tools that leverage artificial intelligence (AI) to improve varied aspects of health system performance. The decade ahead is therefore shaping up to be one in which digital health becomes even more at the forefront of health care delivery – demanding the time, attention, and resources of health care leaders and frontline staff, and becoming inextricably linked with all dimensions of health care delivery. In this chapter, we look back and look ahead. There are substantive lessons learned from the first era of large-scale adoption of enterprise EHRs and ongoing challenges that organizations are wrestling with – particularly related to the tension between standardization and flexibility/customization of EHR systems and the processes they support. Managing this tension during efforts to implement and optimize enterprise systems is perhaps the core challenge of the past decade, and one that has impeded consistent realization of value from initial EHR investments. We describe these challenges, how they manifest, and organizational strategies to address them, with a specific focus on alignment with broader value-based care transformation. We then look ahead to the AI wave – the massive number of applications of AI to health care delivery, the expected benefits, the risks and challenges, and approaches that health systems can consider to realize the benefits while avoiding the risks.

This paper proposes an organizational change process to prepare physicians and other health professionals for their new roles in patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs). It provides physician-centered tools, models, concepts, and the language to implement transformational patient-centered medical care.

To improve care delivery, quality, and patient engagement, a systems approach to care is required. This paper examines a systems approach to patient care where all inputs that influence patient interactions and participation are considered in the design of health care delivery and follow-up treatment plans. Applying systems thinking, organizational change models, and team-building, we have examined the continuum of this change process from ideation through the diffusion of new methods and behaviors.

PCMHs make compelling business sense. Studies have shown that the PCMH improves patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes and reduces underuse and overuse of medical services. Patient-centered care necessitates transitioning from an adversarial to a collaborative culture. It is a transformation process predicated on strong leadership able to align an organization toward a vision of patient-centered care, creating a collaborative culture committed to health-goal achievement.

This paper proposes that the PCMH is a rigorous team-building transformational organizational change, a radical departure from the current hierarchical, silo-oriented, medical practice model. It requires that participants within and across health care organizations learn new skills and behaviors to achieve the anticipated quality and efficiency improvements. It is an innovative health care organization model of the future whose success is premised on teams supplanting the individual as the building block and unit of health care performance.

Purpose – This chapter explores the use of adaptive and disruptive change strategies to create an integrated health care delivery system that is both economically sustainable and patient-centered.

Design/methodology – This case study of Montefiore Medical Center is based on a year of research that included focus-group interviews; individual interviews with executives, frontline staff, and union leaders; site visits; analysis of internal data; and a literature review.

Findings – Montefiore Medical Center is using both adaptive and disruptive strategies to develop an integrated delivery system driven by capitated payments from health insurance companies, a focus on primary care and chronic disease management programs, and community outreach. The growth of these delivery system components in conjunction with Montefiore's Care Management Corporation (to help manage the health plan contracts) has contributed to an affordable cost of care, improved clinical outcomes, and proactive patient and community engagement.

Originality and value – There is a paucity of case studies describing how safety-net hospitals – and health systems in general – can integrate the services they provide to create a positive, seamless, and economical patient experience. The story of Montefiore Medical Center offers an overview of how health care infrastructure and payment methods can be transformed to align financial and clinical incentives and to better serve a patient population that largely depends on government health insurance.

We discuss the impact of complexity science on the design and management of health care organizations over the past decade. We provide an overview of complexity science issues and their impact on thinking about health care systems, particularly with the rising importance of information systems. We also present a complexity science perspective on current issues in today’s health care organizations and suggest ways that this perspective might help in approaching these issues.

We review selected research, focusing on work in which we participated, to identify specific examples of applications of complexity science. We then take a look at information systems in health care organizations from a complexity viewpoint.

Complexity science is a fundamentally different way of understanding nature and has influenced the thinking of scholars and practitioners as they have attempted to understand health care organizations. Many scholars study health care organizations as complex adaptive systems and through this perspective develop new management strategies. Most important, perhaps, is the understanding that attention to relationships and interdependencies is critical for developing effective management strategies.

Increased understanding of complexity science can enhance the ability of researchers and practitioners to develop new ways of understanding and improving health care organizations.

This analysis opens new vistas for scholars and practitioners attempting to understand health care organizations as complex adaptive systems. The analysis holds value for those already familiar with this approach as well as those who may not be as familiar.

This paper situates a large‐scale learning and service development capacity‐building initiative for hospice palliative care services within the current Canadian policy context for use by international readers.

In 2000 a national initiative using action research as its design was crafted to support continuing professional development and knowledge management in primary‐health care environments.

The Canadian health policy context is complex and requires innovative solutions to achieve desired changes in response to emerging population health demands for quality end‐of‐life care. Employment of educational and social science constructs, including complexity theory, communities of practice, transformative learning theory, and workplace learning methods, has proven helpful in supporting the creation of national capacity for hospice palliative care.

There is a significant contribution for social scientists to make in aiding a better understanding of the complexity in health systems. At the same time, an aging population in industrial countries demands more active engagement of legal and bioethical scholars in a range of emerging policy and legislative questions about quality end‐of‐life care. Educational research is also required to understand better and reform curricula to prepare an emerging generation of health science practitioners for the demands of an aging population.

Changing health service delivery environments demand rethinking of the knowledge and skills leaders require to influence desired change. A broader understanding of where and how learning takes place is essential for enhancing the quality of patient care.

The Pallium Project represents a generative response to facilitating learning and building longer‐term system capacity. The journey of project development to date illustrates some important lessons that can be adopted from hospice palliative care to inform other primary‐health care initiatives, including, potentially, mental health, cardiology, diabetes, geriatrics, where productive change can result from productively linking specialists and primary‐care colleagues.