The description of case management in research and clinical practice is highly variable which impedes quality analysis, policy and planning. Case management makes a unique contribution towards the integration of health care, social services and other sector services and supports for people with complex health conditions. There are multiple components and variations of case management depending on the context and client population. This paper aims to scope and map case management in the literature to identify how case management is described in the literature for key complex health conditions (e.g., brain injury, diabetes, mental health, spinal cord injury). Following literature searches in multiple databases, grey literature and exclusion by health condition, community-based and adequate description, there were 661 potential papers for data extraction. Data from 79 papers (1988-2013) were analysed to the point of saturation (no new information) and mapped to the model, components and activities. The results included 22 definitions, five models, with 69 activities or tasks of case managers mapped to 17 key components (interventions). The results confirm the significant terminological variance in case management which produces role confusion, ambiguity and hinders comparability across different health conditions and contexts. There is an urgent need for an internationally agreed taxonomy for the coordination, navigation and management of care.

This paper aims to describe the contextual factors that gave rise to evidence-based medicine (EBM), as well as its controversies and limitations in the current health context. Our analysis utilizes two frameworks: (1) a complex adaptive view of health that sees both health and healthcare as non-linear phenomena emerging from their different components; and (2) the unified approach to the philosophy of science that provides a new background for understanding the differences between the phases of discovery, corroboration, and implementation in science. The need for standardization, the development of clinical epidemiology, concerns about the economic sustainability of health systems and increasing numbers of clinical trials, together with the increase in the computer’s ability to handle large amounts of data, have paved the way for the development of the EBM movement. It was quickly adopted on the basis of authoritative knowledge rather than evidence of its own capacity to improve the efficiency and equity of health systems. The main problem with the EBM approach is the restricted and simplistic approach to scientific knowledge, which prioritizes internal validity as the major quality of the studies to be included in clinical guidelines. As a corollary, the preferred method for generating evidence is the explanatory randomized controlled trial. This method can be useful in the phase of discovery but is inadequate in the field of implementation, which needs to incorporate additional information including expert knowledge, patients’ values and the context. EBM needs to move forward and perceive health and healthcare as a complex interaction, i.e. an interconnected, non-linear phenomenon that may be better analysed using a variety of complexity science techniques.

Evidence-based guidelines whether national, regional or developed by specialty groups, must search for, and explicitly consider, evidence from sources other than conventional clinical trials and their quantitative data. This need for appraising and including knowledge from a wide variety of sources in guideline development is well recognised.1–3

Background: A person‐centred approach in the context of health services delivery implies a biopsychosocial model focusing on all factors that influence the person's health and functioning. Those wishing to monitor change should consider this perspective when they develop and use guidelines to stimulate active consideration of the person's needs, preferences and participation in goal setting, intervention selection and the use of appropriate outcome measures.Objective: To develop a position paper that promotes a person‐centred approach in guideline development and implementation.Design, setting and participants: We used three narrative discussion formats to collect data for achieving consensus: a nominal group technique for the Allied Health Steering Group, an Internet discussion board and a workshop at the annual G‐I‐N conference. We analysed the data for relevant themes to draft recommendations.Results: We built the position paper on the values of the biopsychosocial model. Four key themes for enhancing a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines emerged: (i) use a joint definition of health‐related quality of life as an essential component of intervention goals, (ii) incorporate the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as a framework for considering all domains related to health, (iii) adopt a shared decision‐making method, and (iv) incorporate patient‐reported health outcome measures. The position statement includes 14 recommendations for guideline developers, implementers and users.Conclusion: This position paper describes essential elements for incorporating a person‐centred approach in clinical guidelines. The consensus process provided information about barriers and facilitators that might help us develop strategies for implementing person‐centred care.

Purpose: To examine the relevance of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) to CBR monitoring and evaluation by investigating the relationship between the ICF and information in published CBR monitoring and evaluation reports. Method: A three-stage literature search and analysis method was employed. Studies were identified via online database searches for peer-reviewed journal articles, and hand-searching of CBR network resources, NGO websites and specific journals. From each study “information items” were extracted; extraction consistency among authors was established. Finally, the resulting information items were coded to ICF domains and categories, with consensus on coding being achieved. Results: Thirty-six articles relating to monitoring and evaluating CBR were selected for analysis. Approximately one third of the 2495 information items identified in these articles (788 or 32%) related to concepts of functioning, disability and environment, and could be coded to the ICF. These information items were spread across the entire ICF classification with a concentration on Activities and Participation (49% of the 788 information items) and Environmental Factors (42%). Conclusions: The ICF is a relevant and potentially useful framework and classification, providing building blocks for the systematic recording of information pertaining to functioning and disability, for CBR monitoring and evaluation.

Case management is a complex intervention. Complexity arises from the interaction of different components: the model (theoretical basis), implementation context (service), population and health condition, focus for the intervention (client and/or their family), case manager's actions (interventions) and the target of case management (integrated care and support, client's community participation). There is a lack of understanding and a common language. To our knowledge there is no classification (taxonomy) for community-based case management. To develop a community-based case management in brain injury taxonomy (BICM-T), as a common language and understanding of case management for use in quality analysis, policy, planning and practice. The mixed qualitative methods used multiple sources of knowledge including scoping, framing and a nominal group technique to iteratively develop the Beta version (draft) of the taxonomy. A two part developmental evaluation involving case studies and mapping to international frameworks assessed the applicability and acceptability (feasibility) before finalization of the BICM-T. The BICM-T includes a definition of community-based case management, taxonomy trees, tables and a glossary. The interventions domain tree has 9 main actions (parent category): engagement, holistic assessment, planning, education, training and skills development, emotional and motivational support, advising, coordination, monitoring; 17 linked actions (children category); 8 related actions; 63 relevant terms defined in the glossary. The BICM-T provides a knowledge map with the definitions and relationships between the core actions (interventions domain). Use of the taxonomy as a common language will benefit practice, quality analysis, evaluation, policy, planning and resource allocation.