Despite over two decades of international experience and research on health systems integration, integrated care has not developed widely. We hypothesized that part of the problem may lie in how we conceptualize the integration process and the complex systems within which integrated care is enacted. This study aims to contribute to discourse regarding the relevance and utility of a complex-adaptive systems (CAS) perspective on integrated care. In the Canadian province of Ontario, government mandated the development of fourteen Local Health Integration Networks in 2006. Against the backdrop of these efforts to integrate care, we collected focus group data from a diverse sample of healthcare professionals in the Greater Toronto Area using convenience and snowball sampling. A semi-structured interview guide was used to elicit participant views and experiences of health systems integration. We use a CAS framework to describe and analyze the data, and to assess the theoretical fit of a CAS perspective with the dominant themes in participant responses. Our findings indicate that integration is challenged by system complexity, weak ties and poor alignment among professionals and organizations, a lack of funding incentives to support collaborative work, and a bureaucratic environment based on a command and control approach to management. Using a CAS framework, we identified several characteristics of CAS in our data, including diverse, interdependent and semi-autonomous actors; embedded co-evolutionary systems; emergent behaviours and non-linearity; and self-organizing capacity. One possible explanation for the lack of systems change towards integration is that we have failed to treat the healthcare system as complex-adaptive. The data suggest that future integration initiatives must be anchored in a CAS perspective, and focus on building the system's capacity to self-organize. We conclude that integrating care requires policies and management practices that promote system awareness, relationship-building and information-sharing, and that recognize change as an evolving learning process rather than a series of programmatic steps.

To examine the evolution of health care integration strategies and associated conceptualization and practice through a review and synthesis of over 25 years of international academic research and literature. A search of the health sciences literature was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE. A total of 114 articles were identified for inclusion and thematically analyzed using a strategy content model for systems-level integration. Six major, inter-related shifts in integration strategies were identified: (1) from a focus on horizontal integration to an emphasis on vertical integration; (2) from acute care and institution-centered models of integration to a broader focus on community-based health and social services; (3) from economic arguments for integration to an emphasis on improving quality of care and creating value; (4) from evaluations of integration using an organizational perspective to an emerging interest in patient-centered measures; (5) from a focus on modifying organizational and environmental structures to an emphasis on changing ways of working and influencing underlying cultural attitudes and norms; and (6) from integration for all patients within defined regions to a strategic focus on integrating care for specific populations. We propose that underlying many of these shifts is a growing recognition of the value of understanding health care delivery and integration as processes situated in Complex-Adaptive Systems (CAS). This review builds a descriptive framework against which to assess, compare, and track integration strategies over time.

Interventions aimed at integrating care have become widespread in healthcare; however, there is significant variability in their success. Differences in organizational contexts and associated capabilities may be responsible for some of this variability. This study develops and validates a conceptual framework of organizational capabilities for integrating care, identifies which of these capabilities may be most important, and explores the mechanisms by which they influence integrated care efforts. The Context and Capabilities for Integrating Care (CCIC) Framework was developed through a literature review, and revised and validated through interviews with leaders and care providers engaged in integrated care networks in Ontario, Canada. Interviews involved open-ended questions and graphic elicitation. Quantitative content analysis was used to summarize the data. The CCIC Framework consists of eighteen organizational factors in three categories: Basic Structures, People and Values, and Key Processes. The three most important capabilities shaping the capacity of organizations to implement integrated care interventions include Leadership Approach, Clinician Engagement and Leadership, and Readiness for Change. The majority of hypothesized relationships among organizational capabilities involved Readiness for Change and Partnering, emphasizing the complexity, interrelatedness and importance of these two factors to integrated care efforts. Organizational leaders can use the framework to determine readiness to integrate care, develop targeted change management strategies, and select appropriate partners with overlapping or complementary profiles on key capabilities. Researchers may use the results to test and refine the proposed framework, with a focus on the hypothesized relationships among organizational capabilities and between organizational capabilities and performance outcomes.

Variations in the performance of healthcare organizations may be partly explained by differing “stocks” of intellectual capital (IC), and differing approaches and capacities for leveraging IC. This study synthesizes what is currently known about the conceptualization, management and measurement of IC in healthcare through a review of the literature. Peer-reviewed papers on IC in healthcare published between 1990 and 2014 were identified through searches of five databases using the following key terms: intellectual capital/assets, knowledge capital/assets/resources, and intangible assets/resources. Articles deemed relevant for inclusion underwent systematic data extraction to identify overarching themes and were assessed for their methodological quality. Thirty-seven papers were included in the review. The primary research method used was cross-sectional questionnaires focused on hospital managers’ perceptions of IC, followed by semi-structured interviews and analysis of administrative data. Empirical studies suggest that IC is linked to subjective process and performance indicators in healthcare organizations. Although the literature on IC in healthcare is growing, it is not advanced. In this paper, we identify and examine the conceptual, theoretical and methodological limitations of the literature. The concept and framework of IC offer a means to study the value of intangible resources in healthcare organizations, how to manage systematically these resources together, and their mutually enhancing interactions on performance. We offer several recommendations for future research.

Purpose: Health service organizations and professionals are under increasing pressure to work together to deliver integrated patient care. A common understanding of integration strategies may facilitate the delivery of integrated care across inter‐organizational and inter‐professional boundaries. This paper aims to build a framework for exploring and potentially aligning multiple stakeholder perspectives of systems integration.Design/methodology/approach: The authors draw from the literature on shared mental models, strategic management and change, framing, stakeholder management, and systems theory to develop a new construct, Mental Models of Integrated Care (MMIC), which consists of three types of mental models, i.e. integration‐task, system‐role, and integration‐belief.Findings: The MMIC construct encompasses many of the known barriers and enablers to integrating care while also providing a comprehensive, theory‐based framework of psychological factors that may influence inter‐organizational and inter‐professional relations. While the existing literature on integration focuses on optimizing structures and processes, the MMIC construct emphasizes the convergence and divergence of stakeholders' knowledge and beliefs, and how these underlying cognitions influence interactions (or lack thereof) across the continuum of care.Practical implications: MMIC may help to: explain what differentiates effective from ineffective integration initiatives; determine system readiness to integrate; diagnose integration problems; and develop interventions for enhancing integrative processes and ultimately the delivery of integrated care.Originality/value: Global interest and ongoing challenges in integrating care underline the need for research on the mental models that characterize the behaviors of actors within health systems; the proposed framework offers a starting point for applying a cognitive perspective to health systems integration.

Background and objectives: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical and psychosocial symptom burden in patients treated with maintenance dialysis. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures suggest the need for deeper understanding of how to optimize their implementation and use. This study examines patient and provider perspectives of the implementation process and the influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal on symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: Eight in-facility hemodialysis programs in Ontario, Canada, assessed patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal every 4–6 weeks for 1 year. Screening and completion rates were tracked, and pre- and postimplementation surveys and midimplementation interviews were conducted with patients and providers. A chart audit was conducted 12 months postimplementation. Results: In total, 1459 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; 58% of eligible patients completed the preimplementation survey (n=718), and 56% of patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal at least once completed the postimplementation survey (n=569). Provider survey response rates were 71% (n=514) and 54% (n=319), respectively. Nine patients/caregivers from three sites and 48 providers from all sites participated in interviews. A total of 1207 charts were audited. Seven of eight sites had mean screening rates over 80%, suggesting that routine use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal in clinical practice is feasible. However, the multiple data sources painted an inconsistent picture of the value and effect of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal standardized symptom screening processes across providers and sites; improved patient and provider symptom awareness, particularly for psychosocial symptoms; and empowered patients to raise issues with providers. Yet, there was little, if any, statistically significant improvement in the metrics used to assess symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. Conclusions: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal patient-reported outcome measure may be useful to standardize symptom screening, enhance awareness of psychosocial symptoms among patients and providers, and empower patients rather than to reduce symptom burden.