Dataset Information

Clinical leadership and integrated primary care: A systematic literature review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Leaders are needed to address healthcare changes essential for implementation of integrated primary care. What kind of leadership this needs, which professionals should fulfil this role and how these leaders can be supported remains unclear.

Objectives

To review the literature on the effectiveness of programmes to support leadership, the relationship between clinical leadership and integrated primary care, and important leadership skills for integrated primary care practice.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO until June 2018 for empirical studies situated in an integrated primarycare setting, regarding clinical leadership, leadership skills, support programmes and integrated-care models. Two researchers independently selected relevant studies and critically appraised studies on methodological quality, summarized data and mapped qualitative data on leadership skills.

Results

Of the 3207 articles identified, 56 were selected based on abstract and title, from which 20 met the inclusion criteria. Selected papers were of mediocre quality. Two non-controlled studies suggested that leadership support programmes helped prepare and guide leaders and positively contributed to implementation of integrated primary care. There was little support that leaders positively influence implementation of integrated care. Leaders' relational and organizational skills as well as process-management and change-management skills were considered important to improve care integration. Physicians seemed to be the most adequate leaders.

Conclusion

Good quality research on clinical leadership in integrated primary care is scarce. More profound knowledge is needed about leadership skills, required for integrated-care implementation, and leadership support aimed at developing these skills.

SUBMITTER: Nieuwboer MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6394325 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical leadership and integrated primary care: A systematic literature review.

Nieuwboer Minke S MS van der Sande Rob R van der Marck Marjolein A MA Olde Rikkert Marcel G M MGM Perry Marieke M

The European journal of general practice 20181126 1

<h4>Background</h4>Leaders are needed to address healthcare changes essential for implementation of integrated primary care. What kind of leadership this needs, which professionals should fulfil this role and how these leaders can be supported remains unclear.<h4>Objectives</h4>To review the literature on the effectiveness of programmes to support leadership, the relationship between clinical leadership and integrated primary care, and important leadership skills for integrated primary care prac ...[more]

PMID: 30474447

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care in England is facing increasing pressure due to the increasing number and complexity of consultations and the declining number of doctors per head of population. The improvement of primary care efficiency and productivity should be a priority, to ensure that future investments in the medical workforce can cope with the increasingly large and complex demand for care.ObjectivesThis paper presents a systematic literature review of studies that define or measure efficiency in primary care in high-income settings. The review of the existing definitions of primary care efficiency and their limitations will inform future research on the measurement of efficiency in primary care in England and its determinants.MethodsLiterature searches were performed on Embase, Medline, and EconLit in January 2020. The records that passed the screening were reviewed in full text, and data on the study settings, the efficiency definition, and the efficiency analysis were extracted.ResultsOf the 2590 non-duplicate records retrieved from the searches, 38 papers were included in the analysis. The volume of the literature on primary care efficiency has evolved significantly from the 1980s, with the majority of the published studies focussing on European health systems. The setting most often analysed was primary care centres. Output was usually expressed using measures of primary care utilisation, with or without quality adjustments. Reference to the health outcomes achieved was, however, limited. Inputs were more commonly expressed in labour terms, while the exogenous variables related either to the characteristics of the patient population or the organisation of primary care. While all studies included an analysis of technical efficiency, consideration of allocative or cost efficiency or the determinants of productivity (e.g. technological change, skill mix) was rare.ConclusionsThe main limitations that future research on primary care efficiency should address relate to the definition of output. Current approaches to measure the impact on health and the multiple dimensions of output are not sufficient to represent the valued output of primary care. In light of the recent changes in the model of primary care delivery in England, future research should also investigate the impact of technological change on productivity and the scope for substitution across staff roles.

Project description:ObjectivesMental health disorders contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and lead to extensive strain on health systems. The integration of mental health workers into primary care has been proposed as one possible solution, but evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness of this approach is unclear. We reviewed the clinical and cost effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.DesignSystematic literature review.Data sourcesWe searched the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthcare Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and Global Health databases.Eligibility criteriaAll quantitative studies published before July 2019 were eligible for the review; participants of any age and gender were included. Studies did not need to report a certain outcome measure or comparator in order to be eligible.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using a standardised table; however, pooled analysis proved unfeasible. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.ResultsFifteen studies from four countries were included. Mental health worker integration was associated with mental health benefits to varied populations, including minority groups and those with comorbid chronic diseases. Furthermore, the interventions were correlated with high patient satisfaction and increases in specialist mental health referrals among minority populations. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest clinical outcomes were significantly different from usual general practitioner care.ConclusionsWhile there appear to be some benefits associated with mental health worker integration in primary care practices, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that an onsite primary care mental health worker is significantly more clinically or cost effective when compared with usual general practitioner care. There should therefore be an increased emphasis on generating new evidence from clinical trials to better understand the benefits and effectiveness of mental health workers colocated within primary care practices.

Dataset Information

Clinical leadership and integrated primary care: A systematic literature review.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Clinical leadership and integrated primary care: A systematic literature review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets