The development of integrated diabetes care in the Netherlands: a multiplayer self-assessment analysis

Abstract

BackgroundSince recent years Dutch diabetes care has increasingly focused on improving the quality of care by introducing the concept of care groups (in Dutch: ‘zorggroepen’), care pathways and improving cooperation with involved care professionals and patients. This study examined how participating actors in care groups assess the development of their diabetes services and the differences and similarities between different stakeholder groups.MethodsA self-evaluation study was performed within 36 diabetes care groups in the Netherlands. A web-based self-assessment instrument, based on the Development Model for Integrated Care (DMIC), was used to collect data among stakeholders of each care group. The DMIC defines nine clusters of integrated care and four phases of development. Statistical analysis was used to analyze the data.ResultsRespondents indicated that the diabetes care groups work together in well-organized multidisciplinary teams and there is clarity about one another’s expertise, roles and tasks. The care groups can still develop on elements related to the management and monitoring of performance, quality of care and patient-centeredness. The results show differences (p < 0.01) between three stakeholders groups in how they assess their integrated care services; (1) core players, (2) managers/directors/coordinators and (3) players at a distance. Managers, directors and coordinators assessed more implemented integrated care activities than the other two stakeholder groups. This stakeholder group also placed their care groups in a further phase of development. Players at a distance assessed significantly less present elements and assessed their care group as less developed.ConclusionsThe results show a significant difference between stakeholder groups in the assessment of diabetes care practices. This reflects that the professional disciplines and the roles of stakeholders influence the way they asses the development of their integrated care setting, or that certain stakeholder groups could be less involved or informed.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2167-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Values of Integrated Care: A Systematic Review

“…Research by Huber and colleagues illustrates that different stakeholders (patients, public health actors, healthcare providers, citizens, insurers, researchers and policy makers) vary in the importance they attach to various dimensions of health [72]. Other studies show discrepancies between the health state preferences of clients and healthcare professionals [73] and that stakeholders in the same integrated care network may assess the development of their network differently [74]. …”

Association between GP participation in a primary care group and monitoring of biomedical and lifestyle target indicators in people with type 2 diabetes: a cohort study (ELZHA cohort-1)

“…This is supported by a Canadian study showing that in the view of GPs, supporting access of GPs to other health professionals in primary care such as nurse practitioners facilitates interprofessional collaboration and improves diabetes care 37. To illustrate, although the collaboration process between GPs and nurse practitioners in daily practice is sometimes perceived as challenging,29 within care groups, different stakeholder groups report clarity about one another’s expertise, roles and tasks 38. Accordingly, process coaching by an experienced staff nurse might ameliorate the functioning of the GP team and subsequently care delivery.…”

Comparing International Models of Integrated Care: How Can We Learn Across Borders?

“…The Vilans research team consists of researchers from the Netherlands, working on several national (diabetes networks [31], stroke services networks [32]) and international comparative case studies (SUSTAIN [20], ESN [33]) on the development and implementation of integrated care initiatives. The researchers use a comprehensive multi-method case study approach.…”