Purpose – Intersectoral collaboration is often a prerequisite for effective interventions in public health. The purpose of this paper is to assess the facilitating and hindering conditions regarding intersectoral collaboration between health authorities, public health services (PHSs), public services stakeholders (PPSs) and the education sector in comprehensive school health promotion (CSHP) in the Netherlands. Design/methodology/approach – CSHP collaborations in five Dutch regions were studied using a questionnaire based on the DIagnosis of Sustainable Collaboration (DISC) model, focusing on: change management; perceptions, intentions and actions of collaborating parties; project organization; and factors in the wider context. Univariate and multivariate analyses with bootstrapping were applied to 106 respondents (62 percent response). Findings – A similar pattern of facilitating and hindering conditions emerged for the five regions, showing positive perceptions, but fewer positive intentions and actions. An overall favorable internal and external context for collaboration was found, but limited by bureaucratic procedures and prioritizing stakeholders’ own organizational goals. Change management was rarely applied. Some differences between sectors emerged, with greatest support for collaboration found among the coordinating organizations (PHSs) and least support among the financing organization (municipalities). Research limitations/implications – The generalization of the findings is limited to the initial formation stage of collaboration, and may be affected by selection bias, small sample size and possible impact of interdepartmental collaboration within organizations. Practical implications – The authors recommend establishing stronger change management to facilitate translation of positive perceptions into intentions and actions, and coordination of divergent organizational structures and orientations among collaborating parties. Originality/value – The results show that it is valuable for collaborating parties to conduct DISC analyses to improve intersectoral collaboration in CSHP.

BackgroundThis literature review evaluates the current state of knowledge about the impact of process redesign on the quality of healthcare.MethodsPubmed, CINAHL, Web of Science and Business Premier Source were searched for relevant studies published in the last ten years [2004–2014]. To be included, studies had to be original research, published in English with a before-and-after study design, and be focused on changes in healthcare processes and quality of care. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were independently assessed for excellence in reporting by three reviewers using the SQUIRE checklist. Data was extracted using a framework developed for this review.ResultsReporting adequacy varied across the studies. Process redesign interventions were diverse, and none of the studies described their effects on all dimensions of quality defined by the Institute of Medicine.ConclusionsThe results of this systematic literature review suggests that process redesign interventions have positive effects on certain aspects of quality. However, the full impact cannot be determined on the basis of the literature. A wide range of outcome measures were used, and research methods were limited. This review demonstrates the need for further investigation of the impact of redesign interventions on the quality of healthcare.

Although communication failures between professionals in acute care delivery occur, explanations for these failures remain unclear. We aim to gain a deeper understanding of interprofessional communication failures by assessing two different explanations for them. A multiple case study containing six cases (i.e. acute care chains) was carried out in which semi-structured interviews, physical artifacts and archival records were used for data collection. Data were entered into matrices and the pattern-matching technique was used to examine the two complementary propositions. Based on the level of standardization and integration present in the acute care chains, the six acute care chains could be divided into two categories of care processes, with the care chains equally distributed among the categories. Failures in communication occurred in both groups. Communication routines were embedded within organizations and descriptions of communication routines in the entire acute care chain could not be found. Based on the results, failures in communication could not exclusively be explained by literature on process typology. Literature on organizational routines was useful to explain the occurrence of communication failures in the acute care chains. Organizational routines can be seen as repetitive action patterns and play an important role in organizations, as most processes are carried out by means of routines. The results of this study imply that it is useful to further explore the role of organizational routines on interprofessional communication in acute care chains to develop a solution for failures in handover practices.

Although it is widely acknowledged that the complex health problems of chronically ill and elderly persons require care provision across organisational and professional boundaries, achieving widespread multidisciplinary co-operation in primary care has proven problematic. We developed an explanation for this on the basis of the concepts of routines (patterns of behaviour) and rules, which form a relatively new yet promising perspective for studying co-operation in health-care. We used data about primary care providers situated in the Dutch region of Limburg, a region that, despite high numbers of chronically and elderly persons, has traditionally few healthcare centres and where multidisciplinary co-operation is limited. A qualitative study design was used, in which interviews and documents were the main data sources. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with providers from six primary care professions in the Dutch region of Limburg; relevant documents included co-operation agreements, annual reports and internal memos. To analyse the evidence, several data matrices were developed and all data were structured according to the main concepts under study, i.e. routines and rules. Although more research is needed, our study suggests that the emergence of more extensive multidisciplinary co-operation in primary care is hampered by the organisational rules and regulations prevailing in the sector. By emphasising individual care delivery rather than co-operation, these rules stimulate the perseverance of diversity between the routines by which providers perform their solo care delivery activities, rather than the creation of the amount of compatibility between those routines that is necessary for the current, rather limited shape of multidisciplinary co-operation to expand. Further research should attempt to validate this explanation by utilising a larger research population and systematically operationalising the rules existing in the legal and--more importantly--organisational environment of primary care.

No abstract