Evaluating the role of community-based multi-disciplinary teams in integrated health and social care in England: Overview of findings from the Pioneer evaluation and their implications for health and social care integration.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Mary Alison Durand, Gerald Wistow, Mustafa Al Haboubi, Nick Douglas, Bob Erens, Ties Hoomans, Tommaso Manacorda, Robin Miller, Agata Pacho, Lucia Rehackova, Judith Smith, Lavanya Thana, Nicholas Mays
{"title":"Evaluating the role of community-based multi-disciplinary teams in integrated health and social care in England: Overview of findings from the Pioneer evaluation and their implications for health and social care integration.","authors":"Mary Alison Durand, Gerald Wistow, Mustafa Al Haboubi, Nick Douglas, Bob Erens, Ties Hoomans, Tommaso Manacorda, Robin Miller, Agata Pacho, Lucia Rehackova, Judith Smith, Lavanya Thana, Nicholas Mays","doi":"10.1177/13558196251349398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>ObjectivesThis paper synthesises the findings of an evaluation of community-based multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs), primarily serving older people with long-term conditions, undertaken as part of a wider evaluation (2015-2022) of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneer Programme (2013-2018) in England. The MDT evaluation was undertaken in two contrasting Pioneers with 11 MDTs covering four models of MDT functioning.MethodsThe synthesis, set against our conceptual framework of MDT functioning, draws principally on the findings of semi-structured interviews with local strategic level health and care leaders, frontline MDT staff, and patients and their informal carers, observations of MDT meetings, and an online survey of MDT staff.ResultsMDTs were seen as an essential means of working towards local health and care integration. While local contexts shaped the precise aims, structure, composition and ways of working of the different MDT models studied, there were strong similarities across the teams in how staff viewed the nature and benefits of MDT working. MDTs were perceived as having the potential to provide more holistic care to patients, speed up access to care, improve access to a wider range of services and enhance care at home. Benefits to staff included better information sharing; reduced duplication of tasks; enhanced collective responsibility and problem-solving, which enriched decision-making; opportunities to learn from, and about, the remits of other professional groups and services; and the erosion of traditional professional hierarchies. However, barriers to MDT working, including the absence of shared patient records, inadequate infrastructure and resources, and concerns about the ability to measure and demonstrate the value of MDT working, were also identified. Patients and their informal carers reported valuing good communication with their health and care providers but often appeared unaware of an MDT's involvement in planning their care. This suggests there is some distance to travel in terms of how MDTs communicate their roles to those they serve.ConclusionsAt the service delivery level, our findings' implications for policy and practice include the need for greater integration across patient records and data systems, and greater investment in specialist services (e.g., housing) currently absent from MDTs. However, our research also highlighted challenges to evaluating the outcomes of 'integration' both as a concept and at the service delivery level. Changes to both the research environment and the approach to evaluation are also warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":15953,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","volume":"30 1_suppl","pages":"69S-81S"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12423453/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Health Services Research & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13558196251349398","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ObjectivesThis paper synthesises the findings of an evaluation of community-based multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs), primarily serving older people with long-term conditions, undertaken as part of a wider evaluation (2015-2022) of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneer Programme (2013-2018) in England. The MDT evaluation was undertaken in two contrasting Pioneers with 11 MDTs covering four models of MDT functioning.MethodsThe synthesis, set against our conceptual framework of MDT functioning, draws principally on the findings of semi-structured interviews with local strategic level health and care leaders, frontline MDT staff, and patients and their informal carers, observations of MDT meetings, and an online survey of MDT staff.ResultsMDTs were seen as an essential means of working towards local health and care integration. While local contexts shaped the precise aims, structure, composition and ways of working of the different MDT models studied, there were strong similarities across the teams in how staff viewed the nature and benefits of MDT working. MDTs were perceived as having the potential to provide more holistic care to patients, speed up access to care, improve access to a wider range of services and enhance care at home. Benefits to staff included better information sharing; reduced duplication of tasks; enhanced collective responsibility and problem-solving, which enriched decision-making; opportunities to learn from, and about, the remits of other professional groups and services; and the erosion of traditional professional hierarchies. However, barriers to MDT working, including the absence of shared patient records, inadequate infrastructure and resources, and concerns about the ability to measure and demonstrate the value of MDT working, were also identified. Patients and their informal carers reported valuing good communication with their health and care providers but often appeared unaware of an MDT's involvement in planning their care. This suggests there is some distance to travel in terms of how MDTs communicate their roles to those they serve.ConclusionsAt the service delivery level, our findings' implications for policy and practice include the need for greater integration across patient records and data systems, and greater investment in specialist services (e.g., housing) currently absent from MDTs. However, our research also highlighted challenges to evaluating the outcomes of 'integration' both as a concept and at the service delivery level. Changes to both the research environment and the approach to evaluation are also warranted.

评估基于社区的多学科团队在英格兰综合健康和社会护理中的作用:先锋评估结果概述及其对健康和社会护理综合的影响。
本文综合了基于社区的多学科团队(MDTs)的评估结果,主要为长期患病的老年人服务,作为英国综合护理和支持先锋计划(2013-2018)更广泛评估(2015-2022)的一部分。MDT评估是在两个对比的先锋中进行的,11个MDT涵盖了MDT功能的四种模型。方法根据我们的MDT功能概念框架,综合研究主要基于对当地战略级卫生和护理领导者、一线MDT工作人员、患者及其非正式护理人员的半结构化访谈、MDT会议观察和MDT工作人员在线调查的结果。结果医疗辅助治疗被视为实现地方卫生保健一体化的重要手段。虽然当地环境决定了所研究的不同MDT模型的精确目标、结构、组成和工作方式,但在工作人员如何看待MDT工作的性质和好处方面,整个团队都有很强的相似性。人们认为,mdt有可能为患者提供更全面的护理,加快获得护理的速度,改善获得更广泛服务的机会,并加强家庭护理。对工作人员的好处包括更好地分享信息;减少重复工作;加强集体责任和解决问题,丰富决策;向其他专业团体和服务机构学习的机会;以及传统职业等级制度的侵蚀。然而,也发现了MDT工作的障碍,包括缺乏共享的患者记录,基础设施和资源不足,以及对衡量和证明MDT工作价值的能力的担忧。病人和他们的非正式照护者报告重视与他们的健康和照护提供者的良好沟通,但往往似乎没有意识到MDT参与规划他们的照护。这表明在mdt如何向他们所服务的对象传达他们的角色方面还有一段距离要走。在服务提供层面,我们的研究结果对政策和实践的影响包括需要在患者记录和数据系统之间进行更大的整合,以及对目前mdt缺乏的专业服务(例如住房)进行更大的投资。然而,我们的研究也强调了评估“整合”作为一个概念和服务交付水平的结果所面临的挑战。研究环境和评估方法的改变也是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy provides a unique opportunity to explore the ideas, policies and decisions shaping health services throughout the world. Edited and peer-reviewed by experts in the field and with a high academic standard and multidisciplinary approach, readers will gain a greater understanding of the current issues in healthcare policy and research. The journal"s strong international editorial advisory board also ensures that readers obtain a truly global and insightful perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信