MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2735590749 · doi:10.5334/ijic.3193

Effective Organizational Leadership in the Implementation of Integrated Care; Lessons from 9 cases in the iCoach Project

2017· article· en· W2735590749 sur OpenAlexaffabout
G. Ross Baker, Jay Shaw, Jennifer Gutberg, Timothy Kenealy, Peter Carswell, Mylaine Breton, Louise Belzile, Jean‐Louis Denis, Walter P. Wodchis

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueInterprofessional Education and Collaboration
Établissements canadiensÉcole Nationale d'Administration PubliqueUniversité de SherbrookeWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésIntegrated carePublic relationsGovernment (linguistics)Health careBusinessLeadership studiesOrganizational structureEntrepreneurshipKnowledge managementLeadership stylePolitical scienceManagementEconomics

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Introduction: Policy makers in many countries are encouraging the development of integrated care strategies and the development of new models of integrated care. These new models require changes at a clinical or service level, organizational level and system level with strong leadership necessary at all three levels. Despite the key role of leadership in these efforts, there has been only limited study of what organizational leadership approach is successful in different contexts for integrated care.Theory/Methods: This paper analyses the organizational leadership behaviors and strategies in the iCOACH project (Integrated Care for Older Adults with Complex Health Needs) for 9 integrated care projects in 3 jurisdictions: New Zealand, and the Canadian provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Data are derived from interviews with leaders, policy makers and providers in these cases. We draw on institutional logics and institutional entrepreneurship theories to explore how leaders engaged external stakeholders and developed strategies to optimize the effectiveness of integrated care within and between their organizations in these different contexts.Results: There are concerted efforts to develop integrated care models of community based primary health care in all three jurisdictions. However, the policy environments vary in the latitude and resources provided to organizational leaders to develop organizational forms and networks. In Ontario and New Zealand there have been considerable variations in the nature of integrated care organizations and networks, while in Quebec the government has mandated new organizational forms and specified their relationships with other providers. Preliminary analysis of our data suggests that institutional entrepreneurship takes different forms in response to these environments, and other policy issues, such as the development of health care resources for Maori have also influenced the support and direction of integrated care. There is also variation in the entrepreneurial styles within and across these organizations, balancing the need for external stakeholder management and developing local capability for more integrated care based on the vision for the organization.Discussion: Leadership is a critical resource in the development of new organizational forms and in carrying out the negotiations needed to garner the resources and legitimacy necessary for effective organizations. However, leadership strategies can vary in different contexts, and the types of institutional entrepreneurship necessary for building these organizations varies as well.Conclusions: Understanding successful leadership strategies and entrepreneurial behaviors in different contexts helps to illuminate the similarities and differences across different policy and organizational environments.Lessons learned: While leadership is essential for integrated care, there is no single model that has been successful across the contexts we have studied.Limitations: The analysis of the data described here is still underway. Our data is derived from cases in three jurisdictions and these are likely not fully representative of the range of policy and organizational environments.Suggestions for future research: Further research on the leadership strategies that are successful in different environments is needed to confirm and extend the analysis from the 9 cases we have studied.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,448
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,989

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,103
Tête enseignante GPT0,496
Écart entre enseignants0,393 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal of Integrated CareMême sujetInterprofessional Education and CollaborationTravaux en français237 207