综合护理评价的重构;英国国家医疗服务体系的例子。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Tom Ling, Nick Fahy, Jessica Dawney
{"title":"综合护理评价的重构;英国国家医疗服务体系的例子。","authors":"Tom Ling, Nick Fahy, Jessica Dawney","doi":"10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is global interest in integrated care, often associated with how to improve system efficiency, strengthen clinical and cost-effectiveness, avoid gaps in patient care, and improve patient experiences and outcomes, through improved coordination across services. Despite considerable activity in both delivering and evaluating integrated care, evaluations have not greatly helped to understand how to 'do' it better. Evaluations of integrated care have often arrived at similar conclusions, frequently including the generic finding that results are patchy and context dependent. In this article, we explore and discuss these challenges to evaluation, how these challenges are understood in recent key publications, and suggest an alternative perspective. We explore technical inadequacies of evaluations (concerning definitions, metrics, and timing) as well as deeper problems (such as integrated care being dynamic and relational, and operating across multiple, larger systems). In re-framing how to evaluate integrated care, we propose an approach that involves a recursive evaluation architecture. This draws on systems thinking. This approach also recognises that we can better understand evaluations of integrated care as co-producing knowledge and applying this to learning and adaptation.</p>","PeriodicalId":55067,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy","volume":" ","pages":"105418"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reframing the evaluation of integrated care; examples from the NHS in England.\",\"authors\":\"Tom Ling, Nick Fahy, Jessica Dawney\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105418\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is global interest in integrated care, often associated with how to improve system efficiency, strengthen clinical and cost-effectiveness, avoid gaps in patient care, and improve patient experiences and outcomes, through improved coordination across services. Despite considerable activity in both delivering and evaluating integrated care, evaluations have not greatly helped to understand how to 'do' it better. Evaluations of integrated care have often arrived at similar conclusions, frequently including the generic finding that results are patchy and context dependent. In this article, we explore and discuss these challenges to evaluation, how these challenges are understood in recent key publications, and suggest an alternative perspective. We explore technical inadequacies of evaluations (concerning definitions, metrics, and timing) as well as deeper problems (such as integrated care being dynamic and relational, and operating across multiple, larger systems). In re-framing how to evaluate integrated care, we propose an approach that involves a recursive evaluation architecture. This draws on systems thinking. This approach also recognises that we can better understand evaluations of integrated care as co-producing knowledge and applying this to learning and adaptation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55067,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"105418\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105418\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105418","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

全球对综合护理感兴趣,通常与如何通过改进各服务之间的协调来提高系统效率、加强临床和成本效益、避免患者护理方面的差距以及改善患者体验和结果有关。尽管在提供和评估综合护理方面开展了相当多的活动,但评估并没有在很大程度上帮助了解如何更好地“做”它。综合护理的评估经常得出类似的结论,经常包括结果不一致和环境依赖的一般性发现。在这篇文章中,我们探索和讨论了这些评估的挑战,这些挑战在最近的关键出版物中是如何理解的,并提出了另一种观点。我们探讨了评估的技术缺陷(关于定义、度量和时间安排)以及更深层次的问题(如综合护理是动态的和相关的,并且在多个更大的系统中运行)。在重新构建如何评估综合护理,我们提出了一种方法,涉及递归的评估架构。这需要系统思考。这种方法还认识到,我们可以更好地理解综合护理的评估,将其作为共同生产知识并将其应用于学习和适应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reframing the evaluation of integrated care; examples from the NHS in England.

There is global interest in integrated care, often associated with how to improve system efficiency, strengthen clinical and cost-effectiveness, avoid gaps in patient care, and improve patient experiences and outcomes, through improved coordination across services. Despite considerable activity in both delivering and evaluating integrated care, evaluations have not greatly helped to understand how to 'do' it better. Evaluations of integrated care have often arrived at similar conclusions, frequently including the generic finding that results are patchy and context dependent. In this article, we explore and discuss these challenges to evaluation, how these challenges are understood in recent key publications, and suggest an alternative perspective. We explore technical inadequacies of evaluations (concerning definitions, metrics, and timing) as well as deeper problems (such as integrated care being dynamic and relational, and operating across multiple, larger systems). In re-framing how to evaluate integrated care, we propose an approach that involves a recursive evaluation architecture. This draws on systems thinking. This approach also recognises that we can better understand evaluations of integrated care as co-producing knowledge and applying this to learning and adaptation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy
Health Policy 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Policy is intended to be a vehicle for the exploration and discussion of health policy and health system issues and is aimed in particular at enhancing communication between health policy and system researchers, legislators, decision-makers and professionals concerned with developing, implementing, and analysing health policy, health systems and health care reforms, primarily in high-income countries outside the U.S.A.
×
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