ArticleJournal of health services research & policy2025
The role and functions of community-based multidisciplinary teams in two integrated care and support Pioneers: Perspectives from local system leaders.
Article in Journal of health services research & policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The impact and legacy of COVID-19 on community-based multidisciplinary teams organising integrated health and social care for older people with long-term conditions: Findings from the evaluation of the integrated care and support Pioneers.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Article
- 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.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Article
- Evaluating the role of community-based multi-disciplinary teams in England's Pioneer integrated health and social care programme: Setting the scene.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Article
- Frontline staff perspectives on multi-disciplinary team working and the effectiveness of integrated service delivery: Findings from the evaluation of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneers in England.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Article
- The views of older people on community-based multi-disciplinary team caseloads and informal carers about health and care services in two Integrated Care Pioneer sites in England.Journal of health services research & policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectivesCentral government has been promoting closer integration between the National Health Service (NHS) and local government social services in England for more than five decades. Improved coordination between primary, hospital, community health and social services has been advocated as a cost-effective response to growing care needs in an ageing population. This paper concentrates on one of the principal local care coordination mechanisms: community-based multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) involving NHS and social services staff. It reports local leaders' perceptions of MDTs' current and future contributions to more coordinated care and support systems in two integrated care Pioneer sites.MethodsThirty-two qualitative semi-structured interviews with 25 local system leaders and operational managers in two contrasting Integrated Care and Support Pioneer areas were conducted between October 2018 and April 2021, as part of a wider evaluation of the Integrated Care and Support Pioneer Programme. Eight of those interviews took place after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and between lockdowns. Interviews were analysed thematically.ResultsLocal leaders in both areas broadly shared a vision of integrated care in which MDTs were essential mechanisms for coordinating improvements in health and wellbeing, especially for older people who are frail, experience falls and have long-term health conditions. Organisational differences between and within sites influenced local decisions about the purpose and structure of MDTs, but, despite such variations, interviewees identified similar challenges to implementation. Staff turnover, often linked to funding uncertainties, and the lack of shared information systems, were among the most frequent operational challenges noted. System leaders valued national policy frameworks as potential enablers of integrated care but also recognised the role of local contexts in shaping local implementation decisions. Interviewees highlighted benefits emerging from multidisciplinary working, including its potential to deliver more holistic care, fewer instances of work duplication, speedier access to care and enhanced home care provision. However, they were concerned such benefits were not always captured by commonly used performance indicators and thus the value of MDTs could be under-estimated.ConclusionsLocal contextual variables and local understandings of these variables appeared to be the main influences on variations in local responses to national expectations of improvements in care integration. Local leaders in both areas broadly shared a vision of integrated care in which MDTs provided essential mechanisms for securing interdependent improvements in both the health and wellbeing of local populations and improvements in workforce job satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.