Skip Navigation

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2005 17(1):53-58; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzi003
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Huby, G.
Right arrow Articles by Rees, G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Huby, G.
Right arrow Articles by Rees, G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care vol. 17 no. 1 © International Society for Quality in Health Care and Oxford University Press 2005; all rights reserved

Research Article

The effectiveness of quality improvement tools: joint working in integrated community teams

Guro Huby1 and Gwyneth Rees2

1 University of Edinburgh, Division of Community Health Sciences/General Practice, Edinburgh, UK, 2 RMIT University, Department of Psychology and Disability, Melbourne, Bundoora, Australia

Objective. To explore the effectiveness of integrated care pathways in facilitating integration in community-based teams.

Design. Case comparison of models of integrated care pathways in two different settings: community mental health teams in one Scottish region and care of the elderly rapid response teams in three Scottish regions. In both settings, an integrated care pathway was used as a tool for integration, but in different ways. Comparison is made by first identifying key factors structuring team-work in both settings, then analysing how the constellation of these factors results in different dynamics of team-work in each setting. The pathway tool used in each setting is then outlined and an analysis presented of how the tool interacts with the organizational dynamics in and around the teams to produce observed outcomes in each setting.

Results. In both settings impact of tool was shaped by the same organizational dynamics which produced the nature of team-work. In neither setting was the tool optimally effective in improving integration. In community mental health teams a prescriptive, management-driven integrated care pathway was introduced. This presumed a degree of task sharing in teams which was absent. It was resisted by the teams. In rapid response teams a flexible, team-driven pathway tool was being introduced to help teams conceptualize and communicate about the service. This approach fitted with autonomy and task sharing in rapid response teams and uptake was good. However, management did not engage.

Conclusion. The effectiveness of the tool in both settings requires attention to organizational context.

Keywords: case studies, elder care, evaluation, health care quality improvement, integrated care pathways, mental health, quality improvement implementation

Address reprint requests to Guro Huby, Community Health Sciences, GP Section, University of Edinburgh, 20, West Richmond Street, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX. E-mail: guro.huby{at}ed.ac.uk

Accepted for publication October 7, 2004.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.