Turning teams and pathways into integrated practice units: Appearance characteristics and added value

Abstract

It has been 12 years after Porter and Teisberg published their landmark manuscript on “Redefining Health Care.” Apart from stressing the need for a fundamental change from fee-for-service to value or outcome-based financing and to a focus on reducing waste, they emphasized the need to work along patient pathways and in Integrated Practice Units to overcome function based and specialist group silos and promote working in multidisciplinary patient-oriented teams. Integrated Practice Units are defined as “organized around the patient and providing the full cycle of care for a medical condition, including patient education, engagement, and follow-up and encompass inpatient, outpatient and rehabilitative care as well as supporting services.” Although relatively few papers are published with empirical evidence on Integrated Practice Units development, some providers have impressively developed pathways and integrated care toward alignment with Integrated Practice Units criteria. From the field, we learn that possible advantages lay in improving patient centeredness, breaking through professional boundaries, and reducing waste in unnecessary duplications. A firm body of evidence on the added value of turning pathways into Integrated Practice Units is hard to find and this leaves room for much variation. Although intuitively attractive, this development requires staff efforts and costs and therefore cost-effectiveness and budget impact studies are much needed. Randomized controlled trials may be difficult to realize in organizational research, it is long known that turning to alternative designs such as larger case study series and before–after designs can be helpful. Thus, it can become clear what added value is achievable and how to reach that.

Risk Factors Associated With Transition From Acute to Chronic Low Back Pain in US Patients Seeking Primary Care

“… 40 Another potentially beneficial organizational strategy is the use of multidisciplinary teams comprised of medical specialists and other health professionals (eg, integrated practice units). 41 , 42 , 43 Future studies need to evaluate whether different models of care in conjunction with risk stratification can improve guideline concordance, patient outcomes, and decrease the total cost of care.…”

Evaluating the Outcomes of a Hospital-to-Community Model of Integrated Care for Dementia

“…CARITAS has the makings of complex adaptive system, whereby diverse, semi-autonomous yet interdependent team members from different care settings retain self-organizing capacity [42]. Coordinated working relationships among the hospital and community care partners also reflected the characteristics of an integrated practice unit, where care is organized around the condition of PWD that brings together staff members from different disciples with services that manage all aspects of care over the full cycle of the condition [43]. Other features of CARITAS congruent with an integrated practice unit include having a hospital physician to provide leadership and direction, a case manager as the main contact who oversees each patient’s care, regular meetings to discuss patient care with measurement of outcomes, care processes, and patient experience with joint accountability and ownership.…”

Changes in Urology After the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…v As there is some evidence that SARS-CoV-2 may also be transmitted via the feco-oral route [5], we suggest performing prostate biopsies and urodynamics on a day surgery basis. What this essentially means is shifting the focus from the volume and profitability of services provided-physician visits, hospitalizations, and procedures-to the patient outcomes achieved [6]. As a field, we should seize the opportunities provided by telecommunication and technology to transform our approach.…”