Supporting the Implementation of Integrated Primary Care and Social Care Services: A Qualitative Descriptive Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: \nWithin the Ontario context, a recent shift towards integrated care has led to primary care reforms that have aimed to achieve the quadruple aim benchmarks. Particular focus has been placed on population health management, a key pillar of the quadruple aim metrics, which recognizes and aims to address the broader social, structural and institutional determinants that impact upon population health outcomes. As a result, this study aims to identify and describe the key characteristics of integrated primary care and social care models, programs, and initiatives in Ontario that aim to address the social determinants of health. It also aims to identify barriers and facilitators in the implementation of these integrated care initiatives to support future implementation efforts. \n \nMethods: \nA qualitative descriptive study design was utilized and was conducted in two phases: 1) document analysis; and 2) 13 in-depth semi-structured interviews with policymakers, managers/ administrators, clinicians and service providers involved in leading integrated primary and social care initiatives in Ontario. \n \nResults: \nDeveloping and implementing these initiatives had primarily required the introduction of new governance and delivery arrangements. This included the adoption of shared governance structures where equal decision-making authority was often established between health and social partners, and the introduction of a system navigator role who was commonly co-located within primary care. There were minimal insights in relation to the development of new financial arrangements aside from a few joint funding agreements, as almost all initiatives did not share financial resources and few modified staff or provider remuneration. Initiatives experienced barriers including a lack of permanent or long-term funding and technological infrastructure to support patient tracking, follow-up, and information sharing between health and social partners. However, the system navigator position was found to be an essential role in bridging communication gaps between sectors and delivering integrated care for clients. In addition, factors such as pre-existing informal and formal partnerships between primary care and social care organizations, communication and trust between health and social partners, and organizational leadership support for integration were viewed as enablers. \n \nDiscussion and Conclusions: \nThe lessons learned from participants’ experiences in planning and implementing integrated primary care and social care models are timely and can inform future implementation and scale up as the province continues to move towards integrated care arrangements in efforts to achieve the quadruple aim benchmarks. Specific recommendations for policy and future research are proposed.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».