Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

editorial

editorial Peter Thistlethwaite EDITOR How good is the evidence base for integration? and undermine action to implement policy This is a background issue for all policy makers and systematically. This certainly seems to apply well local implementers, and it is a key responsibility of to the UK. this journal to monitor its development and trends. Barriers to progress are well understood here, Our Editorial Board recently held a special session, and knowledge of them can and should inform with specially invited contributors, to do just this. local development. The destination is clear It is a moot point whether there will ever be a enough, and it is possible to overcome or avoid body of scientific evidence which will prove barriers, as shown by ambitious early adopters in beyond dispute that a particular type of approach the UK. This is a positive use of the existing to care will always deliver certain specified benefits evidence base. Evaluation of early adopters would or outcomes. There are just too many variables in inform the next wave of adopters; it is a pity this is any locality. It is more likely that the study of not being done extensively. findings from a variety of sources, gained by a We know from small-scale evaluations that range of methodologies, will be able to inform staff in good integrated teams would not want to local developments of integrated care in such a revert to the old days, and that they are way that the likelihood of improved outcomes and convinced of the speedier, more personal and user benefits could be enhanced. That said, it more creative responses to user need which are would be a good thing if UK research funders possible (see the Sedgefield example in this began to invest in some extensive and Issue). Nevertheless, it is an open secret that methodologically sound studies – particularly the corporate and political leadership in localities is current government, which has set such great store the key trigger for securing these improved by the policy of integration. This research has been outcomes for the user and taxpayer. These promoted in Quebec, for example, and it is to our leaders must also invest in facilitating change; shame that there is no similar programme here. the evidence we discussed points strongly to the At our recent seminar, King’s Fund Fellow Nick need for this. Goodwin reminded us that the ‘chronic care While evidence may not be the main stimulus model’ (long-term conditions model, in the UK) for change, it can be an important facilitator, had been adopted as policy all over the developed with the right leadership. Currently decisions are world because of its clear potential to address, needed about how it should be gathered, how it through better co-ordination, the key health (and is to be interpreted and how it is to reach front- social) care challenges of the 21st century, but line practice – as our discussant Ailsa Stewart without any real evidence of better outcomes. from Glasgow University pointed out. We ended From an international perspective, he advised that our session hopeful that the partners in the there does seem to be consensus on the ‘what’ of seminar, the Care Services Improvement integrated care, but that progress on the ‘how’ can Partnership’s Integrated Care Network, and be blighted by lack of evidence and of tools to research in practice for adults will continue to put measure outcomes. There is concern that this energy into aggregating the evidence base and could result in a lack of belief in integrated care nurturing its accessibility. 2 Journal of Integrated Care Volume 16 • Issue 3 • June 2008 © Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of Integrated Care Emerald Publishing

Loading next page...
 
/lp/emerald-publishing/editorial-xMTKfaCmko

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Emerald Publishing
Copyright
Copyright © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
ISSN
1476-9018
DOI
10.1108/14769018200800018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Peter Thistlethwaite EDITOR How good is the evidence base for integration? and undermine action to implement policy This is a background issue for all policy makers and systematically. This certainly seems to apply well local implementers, and it is a key responsibility of to the UK. this journal to monitor its development and trends. Barriers to progress are well understood here, Our Editorial Board recently held a special session, and knowledge of them can and should inform with specially invited contributors, to do just this. local development. The destination is clear It is a moot point whether there will ever be a enough, and it is possible to overcome or avoid body of scientific evidence which will prove barriers, as shown by ambitious early adopters in beyond dispute that a particular type of approach the UK. This is a positive use of the existing to care will always deliver certain specified benefits evidence base. Evaluation of early adopters would or outcomes. There are just too many variables in inform the next wave of adopters; it is a pity this is any locality. It is more likely that the study of not being done extensively. findings from a variety of sources, gained by a We know from small-scale evaluations that range of methodologies, will be able to inform staff in good integrated teams would not want to local developments of integrated care in such a revert to the old days, and that they are way that the likelihood of improved outcomes and convinced of the speedier, more personal and user benefits could be enhanced. That said, it more creative responses to user need which are would be a good thing if UK research funders possible (see the Sedgefield example in this began to invest in some extensive and Issue). Nevertheless, it is an open secret that methodologically sound studies – particularly the corporate and political leadership in localities is current government, which has set such great store the key trigger for securing these improved by the policy of integration. This research has been outcomes for the user and taxpayer. These promoted in Quebec, for example, and it is to our leaders must also invest in facilitating change; shame that there is no similar programme here. the evidence we discussed points strongly to the At our recent seminar, King’s Fund Fellow Nick need for this. Goodwin reminded us that the ‘chronic care While evidence may not be the main stimulus model’ (long-term conditions model, in the UK) for change, it can be an important facilitator, had been adopted as policy all over the developed with the right leadership. Currently decisions are world because of its clear potential to address, needed about how it should be gathered, how it through better co-ordination, the key health (and is to be interpreted and how it is to reach front- social) care challenges of the 21st century, but line practice – as our discussant Ailsa Stewart without any real evidence of better outcomes. from Glasgow University pointed out. We ended From an international perspective, he advised that our session hopeful that the partners in the there does seem to be consensus on the ‘what’ of seminar, the Care Services Improvement integrated care, but that progress on the ‘how’ can Partnership’s Integrated Care Network, and be blighted by lack of evidence and of tools to research in practice for adults will continue to put measure outcomes. There is concern that this energy into aggregating the evidence base and could result in a lack of belief in integrated care nurturing its accessibility. 2 Journal of Integrated Care Volume 16 • Issue 3 • June 2008 © Pavilion Journals (Brighton) Ltd

Journal

Journal of Integrated CareEmerald Publishing

Published: Jun 1, 2008

There are no references for this article.