Background
Methods
Delphi consensus process
Selection of participants
Delphi study 1
Delphi study 2
Synthesis of the results
Data analysis
Median (1–3) | Median (4–6) | Median (7–9) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Round 1 | Agreement (≤70 %) | Equivocal; discussion Round 2 | Equivocal; discussion Round 2 | Equivocal: discussion Round 2 |
Agreement (≥70 %) | Inappropriate; excluded after Round 1 | Equivocal; discussion Round 2 | Appropriate; included after Round 1 | |
Round 2 | Agreement (≤70 %) | Equivocal | Equivocal | Equivocal |
Agreement (≥70 %) | Inappropriate | Equivocal | Appropriate |
Ethics
Results
Delphi study 1 | Delphi study 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 1 | Round 2 | |
Number of participants | 16 | 15 | 8 | 8 |
Dominant background, n (%) | ||||
Practical | 7 (44) | 6 (40) | 4 (50) | 4 (50) |
Scientific | 9 (56) | 9 (60) | 4 (50) | 4 (50) |
Years of experience, mean (SD), range | 9.5 (6.7), 3–25 | 9.5 (6.9), 3–25 | 13.4 (8.6), 4–25 | 13.4 (8.6), 4-25 |
<5 | 2 (12) | 2 (13) | 2 (25) | 2 (25) |
5–10 | 10 (63) | 9 (60) | 2 (25) | 2 (25) |
>10 | 4 (25) | 4 (27) | 4 (50) | 4 (50) |
Experience gained in country, n | ||||
Australia | 1 | - | 2 | 2 |
Austria | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Belgium | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
El Salvador | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Germany | - | - | 1 | 1 |
New Zealand | - | - | 2 | 2 |
Russia | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Singapore | 5 | 5 | - | - |
Spain | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Sweden | 1 | 1 | - | - |
The Netherlands | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
United Kingdom | 1 | 1 | - | - |
United States of America | 1 | 1 | - | - |
Delphi study 1
Initial taxonomy of key features | Identification appropriateness and categorisation of key features | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Literature review and thematic analysis | National Delphi study | Delphi study 1 | Delphi study 2 | |||||||
Round 1 (n = 16) | Round 2 (n = 15) | Round 1 (n = 8) | Round 2 (n = 8) | |||||||
Initial taxonomy of key features# | Final consensus# | Panel median (30th and 70th percentile) | Agreed (%) | Panel median (30th and 70th percentile) | Agreed (%) | Final consensus | Categorisation | Categorisation | Agreed (%) | Final consensus |
Clinical integration | ||||||||||
1. Centrality of client needs | Appropriate | 8 (8 − 8.9) | 93.8 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 75 | Yes | |
2. Case management | Appropriate | 8 (7.1 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | CI | 62.5 | Yes | |
3. Patient education | Equivocal | 7 (6 − 8) | 62.5 | 8 (7 − 8.2) | 80 | Appropriate | PP | 75 | Yes | |
4. Client satisfaction | Equivocal | 8 (7.1 − 8) | 87.5 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 62.5 | Yes | |
5. Continuity | Appropriate | 8.5 (8 − 9) | 93.8 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | CI | 62.5 | Yes | |
6. Interaction between professional and client | Appropriate | 7 (6.1 − 7.9) | 68.8 | 7 (7 − 8) | 86.7 | Appropriate | CI | 62.5 | Yes | |
7. Individual multidisciplinary care plan | Appropriate | 8 (7 − 8.9) | 93.8 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | CI | 62.5 | Yes | |
8. Information provision to clients | Equivocal | 6.5 (5 − 7) | 50 | 7 (5.8 − 8) | 66.7 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
9. Comprehensive care servicesaa | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 8) | 62.5 | 8 (7 − 9) | 80 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
10. Client participation | Equivocal | 8 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 62.5 | Yes | |
11. Population needs | Appropriate | 8 (7.1 − 9) | 81.3 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 87.5 | Yes | |
12. Self-managementa | Equivocal | 7 (6.1 − 7.9) | 68.8 | 8 (7 − 8) | 93.3 | Appropriate | PP | 75 | Yes | |
Professional integration | ||||||||||
13. Inter-professional education | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 7.9) | 62.5 | 7 (6.8 − 8) | 73.3 | Appropriate | PI | 62.5 | Yes | |
14. Shared vision between professionals | Appropriate | 8 (8 − 9) | 93.8 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | NI | 75 | Yes | |
15. Agreements on interdisciplinary collaboration | Appropriate | 7 (7 − 7.9) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PI | 87.2 | Yes | |
16. Multidisciplinary guidelines and protocols | Appropriate | 7.5 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
17. Inter-professional governance | Appropriate | 7 (7 − 7.9) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | OI | 62.5 | Yes | |
18. Interpersonal characteristicsa | Equivocal | 7 (6 − 7.9) | 56.3 | 7 (6 − 7) | 53.3 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
19. Professional leadershipa | Equivocal | 7.5 (6.1 − 8) | 68.8 | 8 (6.8 − 9) | 73.3 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
20. Environmental awareness | Equivocal | 5 (5 − 6) | 75 | 6 (5 − 7) | 53.3 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
21. Value creation for the professional | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 7) | 62.5 | 8 (7 − 9) | 100 | Appropriate | PI | 75 | Yes | |
22. Performance management | Equivocal | 7 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 87.5 | Yes | |
23. Creating interdependence between professionalsa | Equivocal | 7 (6 − 8) | 62.5 | 7 (7 − 8) | 86.7 | Appropriate | PI | 62.5 | Yes | |
Organisational integration | ||||||||||
24. Value creation for organisation | Equivocal | 8 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
25. Inter-organisational governance | Appropriate | 8 (8 − 9) | 81.3 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | OI | 75 | Yes | |
26. Informal managerial network | Equivocal | 6 (6 − 7) | 43.8 | 5 (3 − 6) | 53.3 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
27. Interest managementa | Appropriate | 7 (6.1 − 7.9) | 68.8 | 7 (7 − 7.2) | 86.7 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
28. Performance managementa | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 7) | 62.5 | 6 (6 − 7) | 46.7 | Equivocal | OI | 62.5 | Yes | |
29. Population needs as binding agent | Appropriate | 8 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 75 | Yes | |
30. Organisational featuresa | Equivocal | 6.5 (5.1 − 7) | 31.3 | 6 (4 − 7) | 46.7 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
31. Inter-organisational strategy | Appropriate | 7.5 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | OI | 62.5 | Yes | |
32. Managerial leadership | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 8) | 62.5 | 8 (7 − 9) | 86.7 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
33. Learning organisations | Appropriate | 7.5 (7 − 8) | 81.3 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | FI | 62.5 | Yes | |
34. Co-location policya | Equivocal | 5.5 (5 − 6) | 62.5 | 6 (4.8 − 7) | 40 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
35. Skills managementa | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 7) | 56.3 | 7 (6 − 7) | 66.7 | Equivocal | PI | 62.5 | Yes | |
36. Creating interdependence between organisationsa | Equivocal | 7 (6 − 8) | 56.3 | 7 (7 − 8) | 80 | Appropriate | OI | 62.5 | Yes | |
System integration | ||||||||||
37. Social value creationa | Equivocal | 8 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | PP | 75 | Yes | |
38. Available resources | Equivocal | 6 (5 − 7) | 43.8 | 6 (4.8 − 7) | 53.3 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
39. Population features | Equivocal | 6 (4.1 − 7) | 31.3 | 7 (5.6 − 8) | 60 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
40. Stakeholder management | Appropriate | 8 (7 − 8.9) | 87.5 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
41. Good governance | Equivocal | 7 (6.1 − 7) | 68.8 | 7 (7 − 8) | 86.7 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
42. Environmental climate | Equivocal | 6 (6 − 7) | 50 | 7 (7 − 8.2) | 80 | Appropriate | SI | 75 | Yes | |
43. Incentive systemsb | N/A | N/A | N/A | 8 (8 − 9) | 93.3 | Appropriate | FI | 87.5 | Yes | |
44. Community participationb | N/A | N/A | N/A | 8 (7 − 8) | 93.3 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
45. Universal health coverageb | N/A | N/A | N/A | 7 (5 − 7) | 66.7 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
46. Single point of accessb | N/A | N/A | N/A | 6 (5 − 7) | 53.3 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
47. Alignment of regulatory frameworksb | N/A | N/A | N/A | 7 (7 − 8) | 93.3 | Appropriate | SI | 75 | Yes | |
Functional integration | ||||||||||
48. Human resource managementa | Equivocal | 6.5 (6 − 7) | 37.5 | 6 (4 − 7) | 46.7 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
49. Information management | Appropriate | 8 (7.1 − 9) | 81.3 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | FI | 62.5 | Yes | |
50. Resource management | Equivocal | 6 (5 − 7) | 50 | 5 (3.8 − 7) | 40 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
51. Support systems and services | Equivocal | 5.5 (5 − 6) | 68.8 | 5 (3 − 6) | 60 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
52. Service management | Appropriate | 6 (6 − 7) | 43.8 | 6 (6 − 7) | 40 | Equivocal | FI | 100 | Yes | |
53. Regular feedback of performance indicatorsa | Appropriate | 7 (6.1 − 8) | 68.8 | 7 (7 − 9) | 86.7 | Appropriate | FI | 87.5 | Yes | |
Normative integration | ||||||||||
54. Collective attitude | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 8) | 62.5 | 7 (6 − 8) | 66.7 | Equivocal | NI | 75 | Yes | |
55. Sense of urgency | Appropriate | 7 (6.1 − 8) | 68.8 | 7 (5.8 − 8) | 66.7 | Equivocal | DA | No | ||
56. Reliable behaviour | Appropriate | 7.5 (7 − 8) | 81.3 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | NI | 62.5 | Yes | |
57. Conflict management | Equivocal | 7 (6.1 − 8) | 68.8 | 8 (7 − 8.2) | 80 | Appropriate | OI | 62.5 | Yes | |
58. Visionary leadershipa | Appropriate | 7.5 (6.1 − 8.9) | 68.8 | 9 (8 − 9) | 86.7 | Appropriate | NI | 75 | Yes | |
59. Shared vision | Appropriate | 7.5 (7 − 8) | 87.5 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | NI | 75 | Yes | |
60. Quality features of the informal collaboration | Appropriate | 7 (6 − 8) | 62.5 | 7 (6.8 − 8) | 73.3 | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
61. Linking cultures | Appropriate | 7 (7 − 8) | 75 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | NI | 75 | Yes | |
62. Reputation | Inappropriate | 5.5 (5 − 7) | 50 | 6 (3.8 − 7) | 40 | Equivocal | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
63. Transcending domain perceptions | Appropriate | 8 (7.1 − 9) | 93.8 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | DA | No | ||
64. Trust | Appropriate | 8 (8 − 9) | 87.5 | N/A | N/A | Appropriate | OI | 75 | Yes |
Delphi study 2
Initial domains and descriptions# | Main comments | Adjusted descriptions |
---|---|---|
1. Clinical integration: The coordination of person-focused care in a single process across time, place and discipline. | • Add that integration is needed for a complex (multi-problem) at stake | 1. Clinical or service integration: Coordination of person-focused care for a complex need at stake in a single process across time, place and discipline. |
• Clinical is too strict for the health and social aspects of health (service delivery) | ||
2. Professional integration: Inter-professional partnerships based on shared competences, roles, responsibilities and accountability to deliver a comprehensive continuum of care to a defined population. | • Add shared understanding among professional groups, since this is of crucial importance for professional integration | 2. Professional integration: Inter-professional partnerships based on a shared understanding of competences, roles, responsibilities and accountability to deliver a comprehensive continuum of care to a well-described population. |
• Rephrase defined into well-described population | ||
3. Organisational integration: Inter-organisational relationships (e.g. contracting, strategic alliances, knowledge networks, mergers), including common governance mechanisms, to deliver comprehensive services to a defined population. | • Use the structure of the description of professional integration to describe organisational integration | 3. Organisational integration: Inter-organisational partnerships (e.g. agreements, contracting, strategic alliances, knowledge networks, mergers) based on collaborative accountability and shared governance mechanisms, to deliver a comprehensive continuum of care to a well-described population. |
• The word integration is problematic, as it is the end of the continuum | ||
• Add collaborative accountability, since this is essential for organisational integration | ||
• Rephrase “well defined” as “well-described” | ||
4. System integration: A horizontal and vertical integrated system, based on a coherent set of (informal and formal) rules and policies between care providers and external stakeholders for the benefit of people and populations. | • Remove horizontal and vertical integration because it does not clearly describe and is too complex to understand | 4. System integration: Coherent set of (informal and formal) political arrangements to facilitate professionals and organisations to deliver a comprehensive continuum of care for the benefit of people and populations. |
• Generally it is difficult to differentiate between organisational and system integration | ||
• Add the political influence in the description, since that is the essence of system integration | ||
• Also add that system integration has to facilitate the other integration mechanisms such as organisational and professional integration | ||
5. Functional integration: Key support functions and activities (i.e. financial, management and information systems) structured around the primary process of service delivery, to coordinate and support accountability and decision making between organisations and professionals to add overall value to the system. | • Add that functional integration is the technical enabler for integrated (primary) care | 5. Functional integration: Supporting communication mechanisms and tools (i.e. financial, management and information systems) structured around the primary process of service delivery, to provide optimal information as a feedback mechanism for decision support between organisations, professional groups and individuals. |
• Add that communication and feedback mechanism is aimed at facilitating decision making | ||
6. Normative integration: The development and maintenance of a common frame of reference (i.e. shared mission, vision, values and culture) between organisations, professional groups and individuals. | • Add that normative integration is the cultural enabler for integrated (primary) care | 6. Normative integration: Mutually respected cultural frame of reference (i.e. shared mission, vision, values and behaviour) between organisations, professional groups and individuals to achieve shared goals towards person-focused and population based care. |
• Add mutual respect of cultural frame of references | ||
• Add that the shared goals should be aimed integrated primary care guiding principles: person-focused and population-based care | ||
7. Person-focused and population based care: Based on the needs and health characteristics of people and populations care is coordinated across professionals, organisations and support systems. | • Distinguish between the person-focused and population-based domain within the final taxonomy | 7. Person-focused and population based care: Based on the needs of people and populations, care is coordinated across professionals, organisations and support systems in order to achieve the triple aim (improving individual experience of care, the health of the population and reducing the costs per capita) |
• Add that the added value is achieving the Triple Aim together |
Synthesis of results
Main categories and domains | Description |
---|---|
Scope of integrated care
| |
Person-focused care
| |
Centrality of client needs | The principle of integrated service delivery is to address the needs of individual clients in terms of medical, psychological and social aspects of health |
Population based care
| |
Centrality of population needs b | The principle of integrated service delivery is to address the dominant needs of well-defined populations |
Type of integration processes
| |
Clinical integration
| |
Case management | Coordination of care for clients with a high risk profile (e.g. identifying risks, developing policies and guidance) |
Continuity | Integrated service delivery aims to provide fluid the processes of care delivery for an individual client |
Interaction between professional and client | Attitude and behavioural characteristics between professional and client regarding all health needs of the client |
Individual multidisciplinary care plan | Implementation and application of a multidisciplinary care plan at the individual client level |
Professional integration
| |
Inter-professional education | Inter-professional education for professionals focused on interdisciplinary service delivery and collaboration |
Agreements on interdisciplinary collaboration | Agreements on the establishment of interdisciplinary service delivery and collaboration between the professionals |
Value creation for the professional | The value added by the integrated service delivery approach for the individual professional |
Organisational integration
| |
Inter-organisational governance b | The governance of the integrated service model is focused on openness, integrity and accountability between the involved organisations and professionals (e.g. joint accountability, appeal on pursued policies and responsibilities) |
Inter-organisational strategy | Collective elaborated strategy between the organisations involved in the integrated service model |
Trust | The extent to which those involved in the integrated service model trust each other |
System integration
| |
Alignment of regulatory frameworks a | Alignment of regulatory frameworks for teamwork, coordination and continuity of care |
Environmental climate a | Political, economic and social climate in the environment of the integrated service model (e.g. market characteristics, regulatory framework, and competition) |
Enablers for integration
| |
Functional integration
| |
Learning organisations | Collective learning power between the organisations involved in the integrated service model (e.g. joint research and development programs) |
Information management | Aligned information management systems within the integrated service model (e.g. monitoring and benchmarking systems) |
Regular feedback of performance indicators | Regular feedback of performance indicators for quality improvement and self-reflection |
Normative integration
| |
Shared vision b | Collectively shared long-term vision among the people who are involved in the integrated service model |
Reliable behaviour | The extent to which the agreements and promises within the integrated service model are fulfilled |
Visionary leadership | Leadership based on a vision that inspires and mobilizes people within the integrated service model |
Linking cultures | Linking cultures (e.g. values and norms) with different ideological values within the integrated service model |