Identifying Differences in Frames of Reference That Are Hard to Reconcile During the Process of Normative Integration to Deliver Care for People with Multiple Problems: A Mixed-Method Delphi Study in the Netherlands

Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems? Methods: A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for... Mehr ...

Verfasser: Lieke Reinhoudt-den Boer
Robbert Huijsman
Jeroen David Hendrikus van Wijngaarden
Dokumenttyp: Artikel
Erscheinungsdatum: 2024
Reihe/Periodikum: International Journal of Integrated Care, Vol 24, Pp 2-2 (2024)
Verlag/Hrsg.: Ubiquity Press
Schlagwörter: integrated care / normative integration / people with multiple problems / Medicine (General) / R5-920
Sprache: Englisch
Permalink: https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-29171813
Datenquelle: BASE; Originalkatalog
Powered By: BASE
Link(s) : https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.7583

Background: Integrated care is enhanced by integration on system, organizational, professional, and clinical levels including functional and normative integration. Many studies have been done on functional integration on these different levels, less studies focus on how normative integration takes place. In this study, we focus on the question: what differences in frames of refence must be addressed to establish consensus on appropriate care for People with Multiple Problems? Methods: A mixed-method Delphi study was carried out in which professionals and managers regularly involved in care for people with multiple problems (PWMPs) worked towards consensus on appropriate care delivery through the assessment of 15 vignettes representing real trajectories of PWMPs. Results: No consensus on appropriate care delivery was reached on any of the 15 vignettes. Five differences in perspective explained the dissensus: 1) an individual versus a systemic perspective on the client; 2) a focus on self-expressed needs of clients or professionally assessed (normative) needs; 3) client-directed or caregiver-directed care; 4) client as victim of circumstances or responsible for circumstances; 5) a focus on barriers or opportunities. Conclusions: In general, panelists agreed that care for PWMPs should be integrated. However, the further integrated care was to be operationalized in practice the greater the dissensus between panelists emerged. To understand how these differences in perspectives may be overcome to provide care for PWMPs normative integration needs to be studied during actual processes of care delivery.