Policy Versus Practice: Facilitators and Barriers of Chronic Care Integration in Dutch General Practice - a Survey Study.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES International Journal of Integrated Care Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.5334/ijic.8443
Toine E P Remers, Simone A Van Dulmen, Erik W M A Bischoff, Florien M Kruse, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, Patrick P T Jeurissen
{"title":"Policy Versus Practice: Facilitators and Barriers of Chronic Care Integration in Dutch General Practice - a Survey Study.","authors":"Toine E P Remers, Simone A Van Dulmen, Erik W M A Bischoff, Florien M Kruse, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert, Patrick P T Jeurissen","doi":"10.5334/ijic.8443","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Multimorbidity challenges quality and sustainability of healthcare systems. Care groups were introduced in the Netherlands to promote integration of chronic primary care, but it remains unknown to which degree they facilitate this. This study therefore aims to determine whether Dutch general practices perceive themselves to be capable of delivering integrated chronic care and uncover the role of care groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a survey study amongst 39 care groups and 65 healthcare providers within general practices (GPs and nurse practitioners).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>43% of healthcare providers within general practices are (very) dissatisfied with capabilities for chronic care to patients and 56% do not feel capable of delivering integrated care. Care groups and providers show alignment in their perception of some of the most important facilitators and barriers such as motivation and lack of time, but other factors are valued differently at both levels.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings show inability of general practices to deliver integrated chronic care despite a health system that is inherently supportive of care integration and point to a mismatch between barriers and facilitators amongst practices and care groups, resulting in providers partly relying on their motivation in accommodating integrated chronic care.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>General practices are not sufficiently supported by care groups and national policies in delivering integrated chronic care. The identified mismatch between policy and practice warrants redesign of support from care groups to align policies with identified barriers and facilitators at the provider level.</p>","PeriodicalId":14049,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Integrated Care","volume":"24 4","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11661053/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Integrated Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.8443","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Multimorbidity challenges quality and sustainability of healthcare systems. Care groups were introduced in the Netherlands to promote integration of chronic primary care, but it remains unknown to which degree they facilitate this. This study therefore aims to determine whether Dutch general practices perceive themselves to be capable of delivering integrated chronic care and uncover the role of care groups.

Methods: We performed a survey study amongst 39 care groups and 65 healthcare providers within general practices (GPs and nurse practitioners).

Results: 43% of healthcare providers within general practices are (very) dissatisfied with capabilities for chronic care to patients and 56% do not feel capable of delivering integrated care. Care groups and providers show alignment in their perception of some of the most important facilitators and barriers such as motivation and lack of time, but other factors are valued differently at both levels.

Discussion: Our findings show inability of general practices to deliver integrated chronic care despite a health system that is inherently supportive of care integration and point to a mismatch between barriers and facilitators amongst practices and care groups, resulting in providers partly relying on their motivation in accommodating integrated chronic care.

Conclusion: General practices are not sufficiently supported by care groups and national policies in delivering integrated chronic care. The identified mismatch between policy and practice warrants redesign of support from care groups to align policies with identified barriers and facilitators at the provider level.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策与实践:促进和障碍的慢性护理整合在荷兰全科医生-一项调查研究。
多病挑战卫生保健系统的质量和可持续性。荷兰引入了护理小组,以促进慢性初级保健的整合,但目前尚不清楚他们在多大程度上促进了这一点。因此,本研究旨在确定荷兰全科医生是否认为自己有能力提供综合慢性护理,并揭示护理小组的作用。方法:我们对39个护理组和65个全科医生(全科医生和执业护士)的医疗保健提供者进行了一项调查研究。结果:43%的全科医疗服务提供者(非常)不满意为患者提供慢性护理的能力,56%的人认为没有能力提供综合护理。护理小组和提供者对一些最重要的促进因素和障碍(如动机和缺乏时间)的看法是一致的,但其他因素在两个层面上的价值不同。讨论:我们的研究结果表明,尽管卫生系统本质上支持护理整合,但全科医生无法提供综合慢性护理,并指出实践和护理团体之间的障碍和促进者之间的不匹配,导致提供者部分依赖于他们的动机来适应综合慢性护理。结论:全科实践在提供综合慢性护理方面没有得到护理团体和国家政策的充分支持。已确定的政策与实践之间的不匹配要求护理团体重新设计支持,以使政策与已确定的障碍和提供者层面的促进因素保持一致。
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 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Integrated Care
International Journal of Integrated Care HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
8.30%
发文量
887
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 2000, IJIC’s mission is to promote integrated care as a scientific discipline. IJIC’s primary purpose is to examine critically the policy and practice of integrated care and whether and how this has impacted on quality-of-care, user experiences, and cost-effectiveness. The journal regularly publishes conference supplements and special themed editions. To find out more contact Managing Editor, Susan Royer. The Journal is supported by the International Foundation for Integrated Care (IFIC).
期刊最新文献
Acceptability, Feasibility, and Preliminary Effectiveness of a Wellbeing Coordination Program in an Integrated Health and Social Care Hub: A Mixed Methods Study. VALUECARE Model for Value-Based, Integrated Health and Social Care Services Delivery Supported by ICT for Older Adults. Keeping the Myth Alive: Network Coordinators Facing the Challenges of Public Action in the Belgian Mental Health Sector. Fostering Behavioural Change Towards Integrated Care - a Multi-Team Case Study in Specialised Youth Services. Impact of Elderly Acute Care Discharge Services on Prevention of Rehospitalisation: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using National Health Data from Kita Ward, Tokyo.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1