Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a protocol for a realist synthesis to inform integrated care models

Two variants of 'constrained participation' in the care of vulnerable adults: A proof-of-concept study

There has been a radical turn towards ideals of patient autonomy and person-centred care, and away from historically entrenched forms of medical paternalism, in the last 50 years of nursing practice. However, along the way, some shades of grey between the areas of ideal patient participation and of outright patient non-participation have been missed. The current article constitutes an exploratory proof-of-concept study of the real-world traction of a distinction-straddling concept of 'constrained participation' and its two sub-concepts of 'fought-for participation' and 'forced-to participation'. In order to concretise these additions to the conceptual terrain of person-centred participation and its anti-theses, we apply them to themes in the care of vulnerable older adults. In the final section, we close by eliciting some characterological, educational and clinical implications of adding these new tools also to the conceptual repertoire of nursing practice and education.

Mixed-method evaluation of CARITAS: a hospital-to-community model of integrated care for dementia

OBJECTIVES

The capability and capacity of the primary and community care (PCC) sector for dementia in Singapore may be enhanced through better integration. Through a partnership involving a tertiary hospital and PCC providers, an integrated dementia care network (CARITAS: comprehensive, accessible, responsive, individualised, transdisciplinary, accountable and seamless) was implemented. The study evaluated the process and extent of integration within CARITAS.

DESIGN

Triangulation mixed-methods design and analyses were employed to understand factors underpinning network mechanisms.

SETTING

The study was conducted at a tertiary hospital in the northern region of Singapore.

PARTICIPANTS

We recruited participants who were involved in the conceptualisation, design, development and implementation of the CARITAS Programme from a tertiary hospital and PCC providers.

INTERVENTION

We used the Rainbow Model of Integrated Care-Measurement Tool (RMIC-MT) to assess integration from managerial perspectives. RMIC-MT comprises eight dimensions that play interconnected roles on a macro-level, meso-level and micro-level. We administered RMIC-MT to healthcare providers and conducted in-depth interviews with key CARITAS stakeholders.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed integration scores across eight dimensions of the RMIC-MT and factors underpinning network mechanisms.

RESULTS

Compared with other dimensions, functional integration (mechanisms by which information and management modalities are linked) achieved the lowest mean score of 55. Other dimensions (eg, clinical, professional and organisational integration) scored about 70. Presence of inspiring clinical leaders and tacit interdependencies among partners strengthened the network. However, the lack of structured documentation and a shared information-technology platform hindered functional integration.

CONCLUSION

CARITAS has reached maturity in micro-levels and meso-levels of integration, while macro-integration needs further development. Integration can be enhanced by assessing service gaps, increasing engagement with stakeholders and providing a shared communication system.

Realist review protocol for understanding the real-world barriers and enablers to practitioners implementing self-management support to people living with and beyond cancer

INTRODUCTION

Self-management support can enable and empower people living with and beyond cancer to take an active role in managing long-term consequences of cancer treatment. Healthcare professionals are key to promoting patients to self-manage, however, they do not routinely engage in these discussions. This review aims to understand what works for whom and in what circumstances in relation to practitioners engaging with supporting people living with and beyond cancer to self-manage long-term consequences of systemic anticancer treatment.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will follow five steps for undertaking the realist review: (1) define the review scope, (2) develop initial programme theories, (3) evidence search, (4) selection and appraisal and (5) data extraction and synthesis. We will combine an informal literature search with a theory-based approach, using the theoretical domains framework, and stakeholder feedback to develop initial programme theories. We will search Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC and AMED databases to September 2019, and supplement this with citation tracking, grey literature and practitioner surveys. Data selection will be based on relevance and rigour. Data will be extracted and synthesised iteratively, and causal links between contexts, mechanism and outcomes illuminated in the process. The results will be reported according to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and publication standards.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We have received ethical approval through the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia (ref 2 01 819-124). We will disseminate to the research community through conference presentations and a peer-reviewed journal article. We will work with healthcare organisations, cancer charities and patients to agree a strategy for disseminating to these groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019120910.

What Do Parents Expect in the 21st Century? A Qualitative Analysis of Integrated Youth Care

Introduction:

To provide integrated Youth Care responsive to the needs of families with multiple problems across life domains, it is essential to incorporate parental perspectives into clinical practice. The aim of this study is to advance our understanding of key components of integrated Youth Care from a parental perspective.

Methods:

Semi-structured interviews were administered to 21 parents of children receiving Youth Care from integrated care teams in the Netherlands. Qualitative content analysis was conducted by means of a grounded theory approach following qualitative reporting guidelines.

Results and discussion:

Parental perspectives were clustered into six key components: a holistic, family-centred approach; addressing a broad range of needs in a timely manner; shared decision making; interprofessional collaboration; referral; and privacy. Parents emphasized the importance of a tailored, family-centred approach, addressing needs across several life domains, and active participation in their own care process. However, they simultaneously had somewhat opposing expectations regarding these key components, for example, concerning the changing roles of professionals and parents in shared decision making and the value of involving family members in a care process. Professionals should be aware of these opposing expectations by explicitly discussing mutual expectations and changing roles in decision making during a care process. To enable parents to make their own decisions, professionals should transparently propose different options for support guided by an up-to-date care plan.

Co-production in health policy and management: a comprehensive bibliometric review

Background

Due to an increasingly elderly population, a higher incidence of chronic diseases and higher expectations regarding public service provision, healthcare services are under increasing strain to cut costs while maintaining quality. The importance of promoting systems of co-produced health between stakeholders has gained considerable traction both in the literature and in public sector policy debates. This study provides a comprehensive map of the extant literature and identifies the main themes and future research needs.

Methods

A quantitative bibliometric analysis was carried out consisting of a performance analysis, science mapping, and a scientific collaboration analysis. Web of Science (WoS) was chosen to extract the dataset; the search was refined by language, i.e. English, and type of publication, i.e. journal academic articles and reviews. No time limitation was selected.

Results

The dataset is made up of 295 papers ranging from 1994 to May 2019. The analysis highlighted an annual percentage growth rate in the topic of co-production of about 25%. The articles retrieved are split between 1225 authors and 148 sources. This fragmentation was confirmed by the collaboration analysis, which revealed very few long-lasting collaborations. The scientific production is geographically polarised within the EU and Anglo-Saxon countries, with the United Kingdom playing a central role. The intellectual structure consists of three main areas: public administration and management, service management and knowledge translation literature. The co-word analysis confirms the relatively low scientific maturity of co-production applied to health services. It shows few well-developed and central terms, which refer to traditional areas of co-production (e.g. public health, social care), and some emerging themes related to social and health phenomena (e.g. the elderly and chronic diseases), the use of technologies, and the recent patient-centred approach to care (patient involvement/engagement).

Conclusions

The field is still far from being mature. Empirical practices, especially regarding co-delivery and co-management as well as the evaluation of their real impacts on providers and on patients are lacking and should be more widely investigated.

Supporting shared decision-making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

Background

Health-care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision-making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; this is particularly the case for older people with complex needs.

Objectives

To provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs and how they might be applied to integrated care models.

Design

Realist synthesis following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards.

Participants

Twenty-four stakeholders took part in interviews.

Data sources

Electronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Lateral searches were also carried out. All types of evidence were included.

Review methods

Iterative stakeholder-driven, three-stage approach, involving (1) scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, (2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories and (3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11).

Results

We included 88 papers, of which 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four theories (context–mechanism–outcome configurations) that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care; organising systems to support and prioritise SDM; supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM; and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that create trust between those involved, allow service users to feel that they are respected and understood, and engender confidence to engage in SDM.

Limitations

There is a lack of evidence on interventions to promote SDM in older people with complex needs or on interprofessional approaches to SDM.

Conclusions

Models of SDM for older people with complex health and care needs should be conceptualised as a series of conversations that patients, and their family carers, may have with a variety of different health and care professionals. To embed SDM in practice requires a shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers are likely to need support, both in terms of the way services are organised and delivered and in terms of their own continuing professional development. Older people with complex needs may need support to engage in SDM. How this support is best provided needs further exploration, although face-to-face interactions and ongoing patient–professional relationships are key.

Future work

There is a need for further work to establish how organisational structures can be better aligned to meet the requirements of older people with complex needs. This includes a need to define and evaluate the contribution that different members of health and care teams can make to SDM for older people with complex health and care needs.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039013.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Supporting shared decision making for older people with multiple health and social care needs: a realist synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; particularly for older people with complex needs. The aim of this review was to provide a context relevant understanding of how interventions to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs, and how they might be applied in integrated care models.

METHODS

Iterative, stakeholder driven, realist synthesis following RAMESES publication standards. It involved: 1) scoping literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, 2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories, and 3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11). We searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google, Google Scholar, and undertook lateral searches. All types of evidence were included.

RESULTS

We included 88 papers; 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four context-mechanism-outcome configurations that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs. This includes: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care, organising systems to support and prioritise SDM, supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that allow older people to feel that they are respected and understood, and that engender confidence to engage in SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

To embed SDM in practice requires a radical shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers will need support to change their professional behaviour and to better organise and deliver services. Face to face interactions, permission and space to discuss options, and continuity of patient-professional relationships are key in supporting older people with complex needs to engage in SDM. Future research needs to focus on inter-professional approaches to SDM and how families and carers are involved.

Development of a discussion tool to enable well-being by providing choices for people with dementia: a qualitative study incorporating codesign and participatory action research

OBJECTIVE

To codesign a discussion tool to facilitate negotiation of risk between health professionals, people with dementia and carers.

METHODS

A qualitative approach using codesign. Thematic analysis was used to analyse interviews and focus groups with people with dementia, carers, healthcare staff and healthy older people exploring the issue of risk in dementia, the acceptability and development of a discussion tool.

RESULTS

Sixty-one participants identified the breadth, depth and complexity of risk in dementia care and the need for individualised solutions. They also deemed a discussion tool to facilitate negotiation of risk was acceptable and responses informed the tool development. Twenty-two participants provided feedback that was used to refine the final version.

CONCLUSION

Our discussion tool enables choices for people with dementia by focusing on abilities rather than deficits and assists health professionals to deliver person-centred care. Flash cards prompt concerns and the tool provides a range of strategies to address these issues.