Urea metabolism in isolated perfused lungs of the laboratory rat and of a desert rodent, Notomys alexis.

S. Hewitt,T. Nicholas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-9629(83)90633-3

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Organizational factors influencing successful primary care and public health collaboration

Ruta Valaitis,Donna Meagher-Stewart,Ruth Martin-Misener,Sabrina T. Wong,Marjorie MacDonald,Linda O’Mara,The Strengthening Primary Health Care through Primary Care and Public Health Collaboration Team,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3194-7

2018-06-07

BMC Health Services Research

Abstract:BackgroundPublic health and primary care are distinct sectors within western health care systems. Within each sector, work is carried out in the context of organizations, for example, public health units and primary care clinics. Building on a scoping literature review, our study aimed to identify the influencing factors within these organizations that affect the ability of these health care sectors to collaborate with one another in the Canadian context. Relationships between these factors were also explored.MethodsWe conducted an interpretive descriptive qualitative study involving in-depth interviews with 74 key informants from three provinces, one each in western, central and eastern Canada, and others representing national organizations, government, or associations. The sample included policy makers, managers, and direct service providers in public health and primary care.ResultsSeven major organizational influencing factors on collaboration were identified: 1) Clear Mandates, Vision, and Goals; 2) Strategic Coordination and Communication Mechanisms between Partners; 3) Formal Organizational Leaders as Collaborative Champions; 4) Collaborative Organizational Culture; 5) Optimal Use of Resources; 6) Optimal Use of Human Resources; and 7) Collaborative Approaches to Programs and Services Delivery.ConclusionWhile each influencing factor was distinct, the many interactions among these influences are indicative of the complex nature of public health and primary care collaboration. These results can be useful for those working to set up new or maintain existing collaborations with public health and primary care which may or may not include other organizations.

health care sciences & services
Health Care System Collaboration to Address Chronic Diseases: A Nationwide Snapshot From State Public Health Practitioners

Lindsay Elliott,Timothy D. McBride,Peg Allen,Rebekah R. Jacob,Ellen Jones,Jon Kerner,Ross C. Brownson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd11.140075

2014-09-04

Preventing Chronic Disease

Abstract:INTRODUCTION: Until recently, health care systems in the United States often lacked a unified approach to prevent and manage chronic disease. Recent efforts have been made to close this gap through various calls for increased collaboration between public health and health care systems to better coordinate provision of services and programs. Currently, the extent to which the public health workforce has responded is relatively unknown. The objective of this study is to explore health care system collaboration efforts and activities among a population-based sample of state public health practitioners.METHODS: During spring 2013, a national survey was administered to state-level chronic disease public health practitioners. Respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they collaborate with health care systems. Those who reported "yes" were asked to indicate all topic areas in which they collaborate and provide qualitative examples of their collaborative work.RESULTS: A total of 759 respondents (84%) reported collaboration. Common topics of collaboration activities were tobacco, cardiovascular health, and cancer screening. More client-oriented interventions than system-wide interventions were found in the qualitative examples provided. Respondents who collaborated were also more likely to use the Community Guide, use evidence-based decision making, and work in program areas that involved secondary, rather than primary, prevention.CONCLUSION: The study findings indicate a need for greater guidance on collaboration efforts that involve system-wide and cross-system interventions. Tools such as the Community Guide and evidence-based training courses may be useful in providing such guidance.

public, environmental & occupational health
Patterns of Collaboration among Health Care and Social Services Providers in Communities with Lower Health Care Utilization and Costs

Amanda L. Brewster,Marie A. Brault,Annabel X. Tan,Leslie A. Curry,Elizabeth H. Bradley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12775

2017-09-19

Health Services Research

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: To understand how health care providers and social services providers coordinate their work in communities that achieve relatively low health care utilization and costs for older adults.STUDY SETTING: Sixteen Hospital Service Areas (HSAs) in the United States.STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative study of HSAs with performance in the top or bottom quartiles nationally across three key outcomes: ambulatory care sensitive hospitalizations, all-cause risk-standardized readmission rates, and average reimbursements per Medicare beneficiary. We selected 10 higher performing HSAs and six lower performing HSAs for inclusion in the study.DATA COLLECTION: To understand patterns of collaboration in each community, we conducted site visits and in-depth interviews with a total of 245 representatives of health care organizations, social service agencies, and local government bodies.PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Organizations in higher performing communities regularly worked together to identify challenges faced by older adults in their areas and responded through collective action-in some cases, through relatively unstructured coalitions, and in other cases, through more hierarchical configurations. Further, hospitals in higher performing communities routinely matched patients with needed social services.CONCLUSIONS: The collaborative approaches used by higher performing communities, if spread, may be able to improve outcomes elsewhere.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Collaboration across private and public sector primary health care services: benefits, costs and policy implications

Julie McDonald,Gawaine Powell Davies,Rohan Jayasuriya,Mark Fort Harris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/13561820.2011.566650

2011-05-09

Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract:Ongoing care for chronic conditions is best provided by interprofessional teams. There are challenges in achieving this where teams cross organisational boundaries. This article explores the influence of organisational factors on collaboration between private and public sector primary and community health services involved in diabetes care. It involved a case study using qualitative methods. Forty-five participants from 20 organisations were purposively recruited. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and from content analysis of documents. Thematic analysis was used employing a two-level coding system and cross case comparisons. The patterns of collaborative patient care were influenced by a combination of factors relating to the benefits and costs of collaboration and the influence of support mechanisms. Benefits lay in achieving common or complementary health or organisational goals. Costs were incurred in bridging differences in organisational size, structure, complexity and culture. Collaboration was easier between private sector organisations than between private and public sectors. Financial incentives were not sufficient to overcome organisational barriers. To achieve more coordinated primary and community health care structural changes are also needed to better align funding mechanisms, priorities and accountabilities of the different organisations.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Who Delivers Maternal and Child Health Services? The Contributions of Public Health and Other Community Partners

TARYN A. G. QUINLAN,AMELIA L. MITCHELL,GLEN P. MAYS

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0009.12600

2023-01-28

The Milbank Quarterly

Abstract:Policy Points Local health departments with direct maternal and child health service provisions exhibit greater social service collaboration, thereby enhancing community capacity to improve health care access and social determinant support. These findings may prioritize collaboration as a community‐based effort to reduce disparities in maternal and child health and chronic disease. Context Improving maternal and child health (MCH) care in the United States requires solutions to address care access and the social determinants that contribute to health disparities. Direct service provision of MCH services by local health departments (LHDs) may substitute or complement public health services provided by other community organizations, impacting local service delivery capacity. We measured MCH service provision among LHDs and examined its association with patterns of social service collaboration among community partners. Methods We analyzed the 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Public Health Systems and 2016 National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile data to measure the LHD provision of MCH services and the types of social services involved in the implementation of essential public health activities. We compared the extensive and intensive margins of social service collaboration among LHDs with any versus no MCH service provision. We then used latent class analysis (LCA) to classify collaboration and logistic regression to estimate community correlates of collaboration. Findings Of 620 LHDs, 527 (85%) provided at least one of seven observed MCH services. The most common service was Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (71%), and the least common was obstetric care (15%). LHDs with MCH service provision were significantly more likely to collaborate with all types of social service organizations. LCA identified two classes of LHDs: high (n = 257; 49%) and low (n = 270; 51%) collaborators. Between 74% and 96% of high collaborators were engaged with social service organizations that provided basic needs services, compared with 31%‐60% of low collaborators. Rurality and very high maternal vulnerability were significantly correlated with low collaboration among MCH service–providing LHDs. Conclusions LHDs with direct MCH service provision exhibited greater social service collaboration. Collaboration was lowest in rural communities and communities with very high maternal vulnerability. Over half of MCH service–providing LHDs were classified as low collaborators, suggesting unrealized opportunities for social service engagement in these communities.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Fewer adjuncts : more relatives *

Dominique Sportiche

Abstract:Substantially agreeing with Hornstein (2009: 81), “it is fair to say that what adjuncts are and how they function grammatically is not well understood”. I refer the reader to, e.g., Hornstein 2009: chapter 4, Hornstein & Nunes 2008, Hunter 2010 or most recently Hunter 2015 for a catalog of properties and problems adjuncts raise in general, and in particular for all previous proposals including the one in terms of set merge vs pair merge explored in Chomsky 2000 (hardly compatible, as noted in Hornstein 2009: p. 81 with the Bare Phrase Structure assumptions defended in Chomsky 1995). These authors, with whose criticisms of previous proposals I agree, defend their own proposals, which try to deal with the properties adjuncts display while maintaining parsimonious assumptions about syntactic theory. In this short note, I will simply put forth a different proposal, without discussion of these authors’s proposals. In a nutshell, the general, programmatic, idea is this:1
[Models for collaboration]

Kai Uwe Köhrmann,Andreas W Schneider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00120-023-02153-x

Abstract:In the future, a need-base health care system should be ensured by cooperation between the service providers. To promote this, the current legal framework is being adjusted to include the introduction of "day treatment at hospitals", distribution of "service groups" to individual clinics, and the establishment of integrated control centers and emergency centers. Healthcare providers are to be motivated to collaborate via financial support, and also the utilization of synergistic effects and the need of training of future professionals. However, the pursuit of collaboration is limited by professional law, regulations regarding anti-corruption, and the patients' interest in freedom of choice, up to competition law to antitrust law. Collaborations between hospitals and contracted physicians/practices are based on the specifications of the Hospital Remuneration Act (collaboration on a fee basis or in an employment relationship) and the German Social Code (contractual forms of collaboration for emergency services, medical care centers, before/after in-patient treatment, outpatient surgery, specialized medical care on outpatient basis, cooperating with attending physicians, and special healthcare services), as well as being employed at the hospital. Due to their precarious situation, hospitals increasingly cooperate with each other through strategic alliances, up to mergers. To make these collaborations successful, certain principles need to be considered. These concepts entail risks and require trust and a well-balanced relationship between costs and benefits for all partners. The bold path of fair collaborations, focusing on high-quality and efficient patient care, can represent a disruptive innovation for addressing our challenges in urology and healthcare in general.
The Role of Organizational Affiliations in Physician Patient-Sharing Relationships

Kimberley H. Geissler,Benjamin Lubin,Keith M. Marzilli Ericson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558718769403

2018-04-20

Medical Care Research and Review

Abstract:Provider consolidation may enable improved care coordination, but raises concerns about lack of competition. Physician patient-sharing relationships play a key role in constructing patient care teams, but it is unknown how organization affiliations affect these. We use the Massachusetts All Payer Claims Database to examine whether patient-sharing relationships are associated with sharing a practice site, medical group, and/or physician contracting network. Physicians were 17 percentage points more likely to have a patient-sharing relationship if they shared a practice site and 4 percentage points more likely if they shared a medical group, as compared with sharing no affiliation. However, there was no detectable increased probability of a patient-sharing relationship within the same physician contracting network. Our finding that physician patient-sharing relationships are concentrated within organizational boundaries at practice site and medical group levels helps illuminate referral incentives and provide insight into the role of organizational affiliations in patient care team construction.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
The Role of Health Systems in Cross-Sector Collaboration in Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Promoting Health and Well-Being

Andrea Ault-Brutus,Sashane John

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241274902

2024-10-12

American Journal of Health Promotion

Abstract:American Journal of Health Promotion, Volume 38, Issue 8, Page 1243-1255, November 2024. The articles featured underscore the critical role of trust, strategic planning, and cross-sector partnerships in addressing health inequities, while emphasizing the need for further research on sustainable and cost-effective collaboration models. Tocco and colleagues from Northwell Health describe the formation of the Health Equity Taskforce (HET), initially aimed at equitable COVID-19 vaccine distribution on Long Island. The HET has since expanded to address broader health disparities, focusing on community involvement, strategic partnerships, and sustainability. Nemiroff and colleagues discuss collaborations with community partners and payors to address social determinants of health in underserved populations, highlighting opportunities that can facilitate collaborations such as the New York State's Medicaid 1115 Demonstration Waiver.

public, environmental & occupational health
Reasons for merging and collaborating in healthcare: Marriage or living apart together?

Wouter Schors,Anne‐Fleur Roos,Ron Kemp,Marco Varkevisser,Wouter van der Schors

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3695

2023-08-08

The International Journal of Health Planning and Management

Abstract:Background Across OECD countries, integration between healthcare organisations has become an indispensable part of contemporary healthcare provision. In recent years, inter‐organisational collaboration has increasingly been encouraged in health and competition policy at the expense of mergers. Yet, understanding of whether healthcare organisations make an active choice between merging and collaborating is lacking. Hence, this study systematically examines (i) healthcare executives' motives for integration, (ii) their potential trade‐offs between collaborating or merging, and (iii) the barriers to collaborating perceived by them. Methods Early 2019, an online questionnaire was conducted among a nationwide panel of 714 healthcare executives in the Netherlands. Because of their strategic position within healthcare organisations as end‐responsible managers, healthcare executives are especially suited to provide broad and in‐depth knowledge on the internal and external processes and decisions. Three hundred thirty‐seven Dutch healthcare executives completed the questionnaire (response rate 47%). This study sample was representative of the largest healthcare sectors in the Netherlands. In total, 137 mergers and 235 inter‐organisational collaborations were reported. Both closed questions and open‐ended questions were systematically analysed. Results Improving or broadening healthcare provision is the foremost motive for mergers as well as inter‐organisational collaborations. When considering both types, reducing governance complexity is one of the decisive reasons to opt for a merger, whereas aversion towards a full merger and lack of support base within the own organisation convinced healthcare executives to choose for a collaboration. When comparing specific healthcare sectors, the overlap in pursued motives and sub‐motives indicates that inter‐organisational collaborations and mergers are used for comparable objectives. Only a small minority of the responding executives switched between both types of integration. Institutional barriers, such as laws, regulations and financing regimes, appear to be the most restricting for healthcare executives to engage in inter‐organisational collaborations. Conclusions Our integral approach and systematic comparison across sectors could serve policymakers, regulators and healthcare providers in aligning organisational objectives and societal objectives in decision‐making on collaborations and mergers. Future research is recommended to study multiple collaboration and merger cases qualitatively for a detailed examination of decision‐making by healthcare executives, and develop an integral assessment framework for balancing collaborations and mergers based on their effects in the medium to long term.

public, environmental & occupational health,health policy & services
A model and typology of collaboration between professionals in healthcare organizations

Danielle D'Amour,Lise Goulet,Jean-François Labadie,Leticia San Martín-Rodriguez,Raynald Pineault

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-188

2008-09-21

Abstract:Background: The new forms of organization of healthcare services entail the development of new clinical practices that are grounded in collaboration. Despite recent advances in research on the subject of collaboration, there is still a need for a better understanding of collaborative processes and for conceptual tools to help healthcare professionals develop collaboration amongst themselves in complex systems. This study draws on D'Amour's structuration model of collaboration to analyze healthcare facilities offering perinatal services in four health regions in the province of Quebec. The objectives are to: 1) validate the indicators of the structuration model of collaboration; 2) evaluate interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration in four health regions; and 3) propose a typology of collaboration Methods: A multiple-case research strategy was used. The cases were the healthcare facilities that offer perinatal services in four health regions in the province of Quebec (Canada). The data were collected through 33 semi-structured interviews with healthcare managers and professionals working in the four regions. Written material was also analyzed. The data were subjected to a "mixed" inductive-deductive analysis conducted in two main stages: an internal analysis of each case followed by a cross-sectional analysis of all the cases. Results: The collaboration indicators were shown to be valid, although some changes were made to three of them. Analysis of the data showed great variation in the level of collaboration between the cases and on each dimension. The results suggest a three-level typology of collaboration based on the ten indicators: active collaboration, developing collaboration and potential collaboration. Conclusion: The model and the typology make it possible to analyze collaboration and identify areas for improvement. Researchers can use the indicators to determine the intensity of collaboration and link it to clinical outcomes. Professionals and administrators can use the model to perform a diagnostic of collaboration and implement interventions to intensify it.
Multidisciplinary work promotes preventive medicine and health education in primary care: a cross-sectional survey

Ayelet Schor,Lucia Bergovoy-Yellin,Daniel Landsberger,Tania Kolobov,Orna Baron-Epel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-019-0318-4

2019-06-06

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research

Abstract:Abstract Background Preventive medicine and health education are among the strategies used in coping with chronic diseases. However, it is yet to be determined what effect do personal and organizational aspects have on its’ implementation in primary care. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted in order to assess and compare preventive medicine and health education activities in three types of primary care models: solo working independent physicians, nurse-physician collaborations and teamwork (nurses, dietitians and social workers working alongside a physician). Questionnaires were emailed to 1203 health professionals between September and November 2015, working at Maccabi Healthcare Services, the second largest Israeli healthcare organization. Self-reported rates of health education groups conducted, proactive appointments scheduling and self-empowerment techniques use during routine appointments, were compared among the three models. Independent variables included clinic size as well as health professionals’ occupation, health behaviors and training. A series of multivariate linear regressions were performed in order to identify predictors of preventive medicine and health education implementation. Computerized health records (CHR) validated our self-report data through data regarding patients’ health behaviours and outcomes, including health education group registration, adherence to occult blood tests and influenza vaccinations as well as blood lipid levels. Results Responders included physicians, nurses, dietitians and social workers working at 921 clinics ( n = 516, response rate = 31%). Higher rates of proactive appointments scheduling and health education groups were found in the Teamwork and Collaboration models, compared to the Independent Physician Model. Occupation (nurses and dietitians), group facilitation training and personal screening adherence were identified as preventive medicine and health education implementation predictors. Group registration, occult blood tests, healthy population’s well-controlled blood lipids as well as influenza vaccinations among chronically ill patients were all significantly higher in the Teamwork and Collaboration models, compared to the Independent Physician Model. Conclusions The Teamwork and Collaboration models presented higher rates of preventive medicine and health education implementation as well as higher rates of patients’ positive health behaviours documented in these models. This suggests multidisciplinary primary care models may contribute to population’s health by enhancing preventive medicine and health education implementation alongside health professionals’ characteristics.

public, environmental & occupational health,health policy & services
Why do some inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work when others do not? A realist review

Justin Avery Aunger,Ross Millar,Joanne Greenhalgh,Russell Mannion,Anne-Marie Rafferty,Hugh McLeod

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01630-8

2021-03-22

Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Abstract Background Inter-organisational collaboration is increasingly prominent within contemporary healthcare systems. A range of collaboration types such as alliances, networks, and mergers have been proposed as a means to turnaround organisations, by reducing duplication of effort, enabling resource sharing, and promoting innovations. However, in practice, due to the complexity of the process, such efforts are often rife with difficulty. Notable contributions have sought to make sense of this area; however, further understanding is needed in order to gain a better understanding of why some inter-organisational collaborations work when others do not, to be able to more effectively implement collaborations in the future. Methods Realist review methodology was used with the intention of formulating context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) to explain how inter-organisational collaborations work and why, combining systematic and purposive literature search techniques. The systematic review encompassed searches for reviews, commentaries, opinion pieces, and case studies on HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Social Policy and Practice databases, and further searches were conducted using Google Scholar. Data were extracted from included studies according to relevance to the realist review. Results Fifty-three papers were included, informing the development of programme theories of how, why, and when inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work. Formulation of our programme theories incorporated the concepts of partnership synergy and collaborative inertia and found that it was essential to consider mechanisms underlying partnership functioning, such as building trust and faith in the collaboration to maximise synergy and thus collaborative performance. More integrative or mandated collaboration may lean more heavily on contract to drive collaborative behaviour. Conclusion As the first realist review of inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare as an intervention for improvement, this review provides actionable evidence for policymakers and implementers, enhancing understanding of mechanisms underlying the functioning and performing of inter-organisational collaborations, as well as how to configure the context to aid success. Next steps in this research will test the results against further case studies and primary data to produce a further refined theory. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019149009

medicine, general & internal
An Evaluation of Shared Mental Models and Mutual Trust on General Medical Units: Implications for Collaboration, Teamwork, and Patient Safety

E. Henneman,S. McComb,M. Lemaster,K. Hinchey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000000151

2017-12-01

Journal of Patient Safety

Abstract:Objectives This study examines nurse-physician teamwork and collaboration, a critical component in the delivery of safe patient care, on general medical units. To that end, we assess shared mental models and mutual trust, 2 coordinating mechanisms that help facilitate teamwork, among nurses and physicians working on general medical units. Methods Data were collected from 37 nurses and 42 physicians at an urban teaching medical center in the Northeastern United States. Shared mental model questionnaire items were iteratively developed with experts' input to ensure content validity. Mutual trust items were adapted from an existing scale; items were reliable. Data were analyzed using &khgr;2 and independent 2-tailed t tests. Results Physicians and nurses reported significant differences in their perceptions of the professional responsible for a variety of roles (e.g., advocating for the patient [P = 0.0007], identifying a near miss/error [P = 0.003]). Medication reconciliation is only role for which nurses perceive less responsibility than physicians perceive nurses have. Regarding mutual trust, both groups reported significantly more trust within their own professions; both groups reported similar levels of trust in physicians, with physicians reporting significantly less trust in their nursing colleagues than nurses perceive (P < 0.0001). Conclusions Although many efforts have been directed at improving nurse-physician collaboration, more work is needed. To that end, we propose increasing knowledge about their respective roles, providing opportunities for nurse and physician collaboration through rounding or committee work and enhancing the preparedness and professionalism of interactions.

Medicine
Between health care and social services: Boundary objects and cross-sector collaboration

Mark D Fleming,Nadia Safaeinili,Margae Knox,Elizabeth Hernandez,Amanda L Brewster

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115758

Abstract:Health care systems throughout the United States are initiating collaborations with social services agencies. These cross-sector collaborations aim to address patients' social needs-such as housing, food, income, and transportation-in health care settings. However, such collaborations can be challenging as health care and social service sectors are composed of distinct missions, institutions, professional roles, and modes of distributing resources. This paper examines how the "high-risk" patient with both medical and social needs is constructed as a shared object of intervention across sectors. Using the concept of boundary object, we illustrate how the high-risk patient category aggregates and represents multiple types of information-medical, social, service utilization, and cost-in ways that facilitate its use across sectors. The high-risk patient category works as a boundary object, in part, by the differing interpretations of "risk" available to collaborators. During 2019-2021, we conducted 75 semi-structured interviews and 31 field observations to investigate a relatively large-scale, cross-sector collaboration effort in California known as CommunityConnect. This program uses a predictive algorithm and big data sets to assign risk scores to the population and directs integrated health care and social services to patients identified as high risk. While the high-risk patient category worked well to foster collaboration in administrative and policy contexts, we find that it was less useful for patient-level interactions, where frontline case managers were often hesitant or unable to communicate information about the risk-based eligibility process. We suggest that the predominance of health care utilization (and its impacts on costs) in constructing the high-risk patient category may be medicalizing social services, with the potential to deepen inequities.
Aligning healthcare, public health and social services: A scoping review of the role of purpose, governance, finance and data

Daniel Lanford,Aliza Petiwala,Glenn Landers,Karen Minyard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.13374

2021-05-20

Abstract:<p>Organisations spanning social services, public health and healthcare have increasingly experimented with collaboration as a tool for improving population health and reducing health disparities. While there has been progress, the results have fallen short of expectations. Reflecting on these shortcomings, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) recently proposed a new framework for cross-sector alignment intended to move the field towards improved outcomes. A central idea in this framework is that collaboratives will be more effective and sustainable if they develop collaborative systems in four core areas: shared purpose, governance, finance and shared data. The goal of this paper is to provide a foundation for research on the four core areas of the cross-sector alignment framework. Accordingly, this study is based on two guiding questions: (1) how are collaboratives currently implementing systems in the four core areas identified in the framework, and (2) what strategies does the literature offer for creating sustainable systems in these four areas? Given the emergent nature of research on health-oriented cross-sector collaboration and the broad research questions, we conducted a systematic scoping review including 179 relevant research papers and reports published internationally from the years 2010–2020. We identified the main contributions and coded each based on its relevance to the cross-sector alignment framework. We found that most papers focused on programme evaluations rather than theory testing, and while many strategies were offered, they tended to reflect a focus on short-term collaboration. The results also demonstrate that starting points and resource levels vary widely across individuals and organisations involved in collaborations. Accordingly, identifying and comparing distinct pathways by which different parties might pursue cross-sector alignment is an imperative for future work. More broadly, the literature is ripe with observations that could be assessed systematically to produce a firm foundation for research and practice.</p>

public, environmental & occupational health,social work
Solitary, merge or collaborate. Determinants of collaboration of elderly care organizations: a case survey approach

Steven van den Oord,Tom Braes,Bart Cambré,Patrick Kenis,Steven Van den Oord

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.s2146

2018-10-23

International Journal of Integrated Care

Abstract:Introduction: Traditionally, elderly care organizations play a pivotal role in integrating care for an ageing population, but recently this role has been challenged due to competition from other service providers, such as for-profit organizations, hospitals, home- and primary care organizations. In addition, the increasing complexity of current health care, combined with ageing and housing issues as well as rising co-morbidity in Belgium leads to a rising demand for collaboration. Not only do elderly care organizations have to deal with more and more tasks that are unique, but also are resources distributed across various service providers. As such, elderly care organizations are moving slowly from managing mainly physical assets such as housing facilities towards more intellectual and relational capacities and treatment services resulting into shared service centers and tailor-made health and social care solutions.Theory/methods: Although a number of factors have been proposed how to integrate health- and social care service delivery, collaboration pervades most discussions. We argue in this article that elderly care organizations follow a combination of three underlying strategic motives based on effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy criteria to make a conscious, intentional decision to establish a relationship with other organizations for explicitly formulated purposes. We conceptualize these relationships as three ideal types: solitary, merger or collaboration and propose that the presence or absence of these types is explained by a combination of the changing nature in the task, the organizational configuration and its interdependency on others in the external environment.The article presents a case survey approach of 18 elderly care organizations. Data were collected in a five months period of time by using semi-structured interviews of key representatives and a survey. In addition, five workshops were organized and secondary data on elderly care organizations was collected. We applied Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative analysis to analyze what, if any, combination of determinants explains whether elderly care organizations act solitary, merge or collaborate.Results, conclusion and discussion: Implications of the findings for elderly care organizations are discussed in light of the rising health care issues and increasing competition in Flanders Belgium. In particular, we are interested in which combinatory recipes, if any, of task, organizational configuration, and interdependency explain the presence or absence of a particular ideal type of collaboration. Furthermore, future recommendations are presented to further the development of how elderly care organizations can deal with their changing role in the healthcare system.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
It's a Jungle Out There: Understanding physician payment and its role in group dynamics

Rachel Gifford,Eric Molleman,Taco van der Vaart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.116945

IF: 5.379

2024-05-11

Social Science & Medicine

Abstract:Although collaboration between healthcare professionals is essential for the delivery of effective, efficient, and high-quality care, it remains an ongoing and critical challenge across health systems. As a result, many countries are experimenting with innovative payment and employment models. The literature tends to focus on improving collaboration across organizational and sectoral boundaries, and largely ignores potential barriers to collaborative work between members of the same profession within a single organization. Despite intergroup dynamics and professional boundaries having been shown to restrict patient flow and collaboration between specialties, studies have so far tended to overlook the potential effects of differentiated organizational and payment models on physicians' behaviors and intergroup dynamics. In the present study, we seek to unpack the influence of physicians' payment and employment models on their collaborative behaviors and on intergroup dynamics between specialties, adding to the current scholarship on physician payment and employment by considering how physicians' view and act in response to different structural arrangements. The findings suggest that adopting hybrid models, in which physicians are employed or paid differently within the same organization or practice, creates a bifurcation of the profession whereby physicians across different models are perceived to behave differently and have conflicting professional values. These models are perceived to inhibit collaboration between physicians and complicate hospital governance, restricting the ability to move towards new models of care delivery. These findings can be used as a basis for future work that aims to unpack the reality of physician payment and offer important insights for policies surrounding physician employment.

public, environmental & occupational health,social sciences, biomedical
Patterns of Psychologists’ Interprofessional Collaboration Across Clinical Practice Settings

Gerald Leventhal,Karen E. Stamm,Jason J. Washburn,Cindee Rolston,John A. Yozwiak,Auntré Hamp,Elizabeth D. Cash,Wendy L. Ward,Barry A. Hong,Amy M. Williams,William N. Robiner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-021-09802-3

2021-08-17

Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings

Abstract:Healthcare increasingly emphasizes collaborative treatment by multidisciplinary teams. This is the first research focusing on psychologists' participation in team-based care, the mix of professionals with whom psychologists collaborate, and how these collaborations vary across practice settings. Data are from 1607 respondents participating in the American Psychological Association Center for Workforce Studies' 2015 on-line Survey of Psychology Health Service Providers. Practice settings differed markedly in systemic organizational support for interprofessional collaboration and in psychologists' participation in collaborative activities. Psychologists in individual private practice reported least support for and least occurrence of interprofessional collaboration. Psychologists' collaboration with non-behavioral health professionals, such as non-psychiatrist physicians and nurses, was more frequent in general hospitals and VA medical centers. Across settings, greater contact with another health profession was generally associated with psychologists being more confident about working with that profession. However, for work with psychiatrists, that association was attenuated. A collaborative practice model is presented for psychotherapy patients also treated by physicians or other professionals who manage a patient's psychotropic medication.

psychology, clinical

Urea metabolism in isolated perfused lungs of the laboratory rat and of a desert rodent, Notomys alexis.

Organizational factors influencing successful primary care and public health collaboration

Health Care System Collaboration to Address Chronic Diseases: A Nationwide Snapshot From State Public Health Practitioners

Patterns of Collaboration among Health Care and Social Services Providers in Communities with Lower Health Care Utilization and Costs

Collaboration across private and public sector primary health care services: benefits, costs and policy implications

Who Delivers Maternal and Child Health Services? The Contributions of Public Health and Other Community Partners

Fewer adjuncts : more relatives *

[Models for collaboration]

The Role of Organizational Affiliations in Physician Patient-Sharing Relationships

The Role of Health Systems in Cross-Sector Collaboration in Addressing Social Determinants of Health and Promoting Health and Well-Being

Reasons for merging and collaborating in healthcare: Marriage or living apart together?

A model and typology of collaboration between professionals in healthcare organizations

Multidisciplinary work promotes preventive medicine and health education in primary care: a cross-sectional survey

Why do some inter-organisational collaborations in healthcare work when others do not? A realist review

An Evaluation of Shared Mental Models and Mutual Trust on General Medical Units: Implications for Collaboration, Teamwork, and Patient Safety

Between health care and social services: Boundary objects and cross-sector collaboration

Aligning healthcare, public health and social services: A scoping review of the role of purpose, governance, finance and data

Solitary, merge or collaborate. Determinants of collaboration of elderly care organizations: a case survey approach

It's a Jungle Out There: Understanding physician payment and its role in group dynamics

Patterns of Psychologists’ Interprofessional Collaboration Across Clinical Practice Settings