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

W. H. van Harten* (Corresponding Author)

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)
19 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)113-116
Number of pages4
JournalInternational Journal of Care Coordination
Volume21
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Dec 2018

Fingerprint

Staff Development
Patient Participation
Fee-for-Service Plans
Manuscripts
Budgets
Patient Education
Ambulatory Care
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Inpatients
Randomized Controlled Trials
Delivery of Health Care
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research

Keywords

  • Care pathways
  • health services research
  • management
  • organized care

Cite this

@article{89a62c894dd74637ade7509e4d583054,
title = "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.",
keywords = "Care pathways, health services research, management, organized care",
author = "{van Harten}, {W. H.}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1177/2053434518816529",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "113--116",
journal = "International Journal of Care Coordination",
issn = "2053-4345",
publisher = "SAGE Publications",
number = "4",

}

Turning teams and pathways into integrated practice units : Appearance characteristics and added value. / van Harten, W. H. (Corresponding Author).

In: International Journal of Care Coordination, Vol. 21, No. 4, 14.12.2018, p. 113-116.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Turning teams and pathways into integrated practice units

T2 - Appearance characteristics and added value

AU - van Harten, W. H.

PY - 2018/12/14

Y1 - 2018/12/14

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Care pathways

KW - health services research

KW - management

KW - organized care

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85058806479&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/2053434518816529

DO - 10.1177/2053434518816529

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85058806479

VL - 21

SP - 113

EP - 116

JO - International Journal of Care Coordination

JF - International Journal of Care Coordination

SN - 2053-4345

IS - 4

ER -