Integrating health and social care services remains one of the most difficult undertakings in the field of care delivery. One of the key requirements for success in integration programmes is a shared vision amongst care providers. Shared visions may contain views as to what the new services should look like, how it should operate and what it should be able to achieve. The paper reports findings of an evaluation of a service integration programme in the North of England. It confirms that a programme consensus on issues such as aims and objectives and programme logics is seen by participants as a key to success. Yet, the study also found that there is a specific window of opportunity in integration programmes when participating organisations start on relatively high levels of commitment and enthusiasm which tend to tail off relatively quickly. The paper closes with a discussion about the implications of the findings for programme designers and service planners.
DickinsonH.Evaluating outcomes in health and social care, better partnership working.
Bristol:
Policy Press, 2008.
2.
DickinsonHJeffaresSNicholdsA, et al.
Beyond the Berlin Wall?Public Manage Rev2013;
16: 830–851.
3.
FisherMPElnitskyC.Health and social services integration: a review of concepts and models. Social Work in Public Health2012; 27(5): 441–68.
4.
GoodwinNSmithJDaviesA, et al. Integrated care for patients and populations: improving outcomes by working together. Report, Department of Health and NHS Future Forum from the King’s Fund and Nuffield Trust, The King’s Fund, London, 2011.
5.
RivasCAbbottSTaylorSJC, et al.
Collaborative working within UK NHS secondary care and across sectors for COPD and the impact of peer review: qualitative findings from the UK National COPD Resources and Outcomes Project. Int J Integr Care2010;
10: 1–13.
6.
ValentijnPPSchepmanSMOpheijW, et al.
Understanding integrated care: a comprehensive conceptual framework based on the integrative functions of primary care. Int J Integr Care2013;
13: e010.
7.
ValentijnPPVrijhoefHJMRuwaardD, et al.
Towards an international taxonomy of integrated primary care: a Delphi consensus approach. BMC Fam Pract2015;
16: 64.
8.
HeleneTAnneVRejeanH, et al.The PRISMA France study: Is there a way to measure the implementation of integration in different countries? In: Śmigórski K (ed.) Health management.
Rijeka:
SCIYO, 2010, pp.1–18.
9.
KaehneABirrellDMillerR, et al.
Bringing integration home policy on health and social care integration in the four nations of the UK. J Integr Care2017;
25: 84–98.
10.
MayCRMairFFinchT, et al.
Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implementation Sci2009;
4: 29.
11.
SuterEOelkeNAdairC, et al.
Ten key principles for successful health systems integration. Healthc Q2009;
13: 16–23.
12.
BurtonPGoodladRCroftJ.How would we know what works? Context and complexity in the evaluation of community involvement.Evaluation2006;
12: 294–312.
13.
DickinsonHGlasbyJ.Why partnership work doesn’t work’: pitfalls, problems, and possibilities in English health and social care. Public Manage Rev2010;
12: 811–828.
KaehneA.Complexity in programme evaluations and integration studies: What can it tell us?J Integr Care2016;
24: 5–6.
16.
RummeryK.Progress towards partnership? The development of relations between primary care organisations and social services concerning older people’s services in the UK. Social Policy Soc2003;
3: 33–42.
17.
KitsonABrookAHarveyG, et al.
Original article using complexity and network concepts to inform healthcare knowledge translation. Int J Health Policy Manag2018;
7: 231–243.
18.
PaleyJEvaG.Complexity theory as an approach to explanation in healthcare: a critical discussion. Int J Nursing Studies2011;
48: 269–279.
19.
PlsekPEGreenhalghT.Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ2001;
323: 625–628.
20.
ThompsonDSFazioXKustraE, et al.
Scoping review of complexity theory in health services research. BMC Health Serv Res2016;
16: 87.
21.
CaffreyLWolfeCMcKevittC.Embedding research in health systems: lessons from complexity theory. Health Res Policy Sys2016;
14: 54.
22.
EverinkIHJvan HaastregtJCMMaessenJMC, et al.
Process evaluation of an integrated care pathway in geriatric rehabilitation for people with complex health problems. BMC Health Serv Res2017;
17: 34.
23.
KaehneA.The healthy Liverpool children’s programme: evaluating a local integration programme in the children’s sector. J Integr Care2016;
24: 317–360.
24.
MayCFinchT.Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology2009;
43: 535–554.
25.
Rycroft-MaloneJMcCormackBHutchinsonAM, et al.
Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci2012;
7: 33.
26.
ClarkM.Co-production in mental health care. Mental Health Rev J2015;
20: 213–219.
27.
KaehneA.Complexity in programme evaluations and integration studies: what can it tell us ?J Integr Care2016;
24: 313–320.
González-OrtizLGCalciolariSGoodwinN, et al.
The core dimensions of integrated care: a literature review to support the development of a comprehensive framework for implementing integrated care. Int J Integr Care2018;
18: 1–12.
30.
DaviesJ.The limits of joined up government: towards a political analysis. Public Admin2009;
87: 80–96.
31.
DaviesJS.The limits of partnership: an exit-action strategy for local democratic inclusion. Pol Studies2007;
55: 779–800.
32.
BorgermansLDevroeyD.A Policy Guide on Integrated Care (PGIC): lessons learned from EU Project INTEGRATE and beyond. Int J Integr Care2017;
17: 1–12.
33.
KristensenNNymannCKonradsenH.Implementing research results in clinical practice- the experiences of healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res2015;
16: 48.
34.
BucknallTHitchD.Connections, communication and collaboration in healthcare’s complex adaptive systems. Int J Health Policy Manag2018;
7: 556–559.
35.
EdgrenLBarnardK.Achieving integrated care through CAS thinking and a collaborative mindset. J Integr Care2015;
23: 108–119.
36.
PypePKrystallidouDDeveugeleM, et al.
Healthcare teams as complex adaptive systems: Focus on interpersonal interaction. Pat Edu Counsel2017;
100: 2028–2034.
37.
TsasisPEvansJMOwenS.Reframing the challenges to integrated care: a complex-adaptive systems perspective. Int J Integr Care2012;
12: e190.
38.
HaynesABrennanSRedmanS, et al.
Policymakers’ experience of a capacity-building intervention designed to increase their use of research: a realist process evaluation. Health Res Policy Sys2017;
15: 99.
39.
SullivanHWilliamsPJeffaresS.Leadership for collaboration: situated agency in practice. Public Manage Rev2012;
14: 41–66.
40.
RumboldBShawE, S.Horizontal and vertical integration in the UK: lessons from history. J Integr Care2010;
18: 45–52.
41.
Sifaki-PistollaDChatzeaV-EMarkakiA, et al.
Operational integration in primary health care: patient encounters and workflows. BMC Health Serv Res2017;
17: 788.
LeutzWN.Reflections on integrating medical and social care: five laws revisited. J Integr Care2005;
13: 3–12.
44.
LynchEAMudgeAKnowlesS, et al. ‘
There is nothing so practical as a good theory’: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects.BMC Health Serv Res2018; 18(1): 857.
45.
LawlessABaumFDelany-CroweT, et al.
Developing a framework for a program theory-based approach to evaluating policy processes and outcomes: health in all policies in South Australia. Int J Health Policy Manag2018;
7: 510–521.
46.
Van BelleSRifkinSMarchalB.The challenge of complexity in evaluating health policies and programs: the case of women’s participatory groups to improve antenatal outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res2017;
17: 687.
47.
de SouzaDE.Elaborating the context-mechanism-outcome configuration (CMOc) in realist evaluation: a critical realist perspective. Evaluation2013;
19: 141–154.
48.
BusettoLLuijkxKVrijhoefHJM.Development of the COMIC Model for the comprehensive evaluation of integrated care interventions. Int J Care Coordinat2016;
19: 47–58.
49.
KaehneA.Multi-agency protocols in intellectual disabilities transition partnerships: a survey of Welsh local authorities. J Policy Pract Intellect Disab2010;
7: 182–188.
50.
KaehneA.Partnerships in local government: the case of transition support services for young people with learning disabilities. Public Manage Rev2013;
15: 611–632.
51.
KaehneA.
Integration as a scientific paradigm. J Integr Care2017;
25: 271–279.
52.
Kaehne A. Values, interests and power: the politics of integrating services. Journal of Integrated Care 2018; 26(2): 158–168.
53.
LeathardA.Models for interprofessional collaboration. In Leathard A (ed.) Interprofessional collaboration: from policy to practice in health and social care.
Howe:
Routledge, 2003, pp.93–118.
