Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30464724›Full record

ArticleJournal of integrated care (Brighton, England)2018

An integrated care programme in London: qualitative evaluation.

Thomas Round, Mark Ashworth, Tessa Crilly, Ewan Ferlie, Charles Wolfe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of integrated care (Brighton, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Integrated Care ModelInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Thomas RoundSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Mark AshworthSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.
Tessa CrillyCrystal Blue Consulting Ltd, London, UK.
Ewan FerlieKing's Business School, King's College London, London, UK.
Charles WolfeSchool of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences & Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA well-funded, four-year integrated care programme was implemented in south London. The programme attempted to integrate care across primary, acute, community, mental health and social care. The purpose of this paper is to reduce hospital admissions and nursing home placements. Programme evaluation aimed to identify what worked well and what did not; lessons learnt; the value of integrated care investment. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Qualitative data were obtained from documentary analysis, stakeholder interviews, focus groups and observational data from programme meetings. Framework analysis was applied to stakeholder interview and focus group data in order to generate themes.

findingsThe integrated care project had not delivered expected radical reductions in hospital or nursing home utilisation. In response, the scheme was reformulated to focus on feasible service integration. Other benefits emerged, particularly system transformation. Nine themes emerged: shared vision/case for change; interventions; leadership; relationships; organisational structures and governance; citizens and patients; evaluation and monitoring; macro level. Each theme was interpreted in terms of "successes", "challenges" and "lessons learnt". RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Evaluation was hampered by lack of a clear evaluation strategy from programme inception to conclusion, and of the evidence required to corroborate claims of benefit. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Key lessons learnt included: importance of strong clinical leadership, shared ownership and inbuilt evaluation. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Primary care was a key player in the integrated care programme. Initial resistance delayed implementation and related to concerns about vertical integration and scepticism about unrealistic goals. A focus on clinical care and shared ownership contributed to eventual system transformation.

Indexed as

Integrated health and social careIntegrated provision of care

Identifiers

PMID30464724
PMCPMC6195169

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.