Limits...
Prioritising integrated care initiatives on a national level. Experiences from Austria.

Eger K, Gleichweit S, Rieder A, Stein KV - Int J Integr Care (2009)

Bottom Line: Based on a policy initiative and the foundation of the Competence Centre for Integrated Care by the Austrian Social Security Institutions in 2006, the aim of the project was to identify and prioritise potential diseases and target groups for which integrated care models should be developed and implemented within the Austrian health system.The time constraint proved also beneficial since it allowed the project team to demand focus and cooperation from all experts and stakeholders included.Our model can only help base these decisions on sound and reasonable assumptions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Head of the Competence Centre Integrated Care, Viennese Health Insurance Fund, Wienerbergstrasse 15-19, 1100 Vienna, Austria.

ABSTRACT

Introduction and background: Based on a policy initiative and the foundation of the Competence Centre for Integrated Care by the Austrian Social Security Institutions in 2006, the aim of the project was to identify and prioritise potential diseases and target groups for which integrated care models should be developed and implemented within the Austrian health system. The project was conducted as a cooperation between the Competence Centre for Integrated Care of the Viennese Health Insurance Fund and the Institute of Social Medicine of the Medical University Vienna to ensure the involvement of both, theory and practice. PROJECT REPORT: The focus of the project was to develop an evidence-based process for the identification and prioritisation of diseases and target groups for integrated care measures. As there was no evidence of similar projects elsewhere, the team set out to design the prioritisation process and formulate the selection criteria based on the work in a focus group, literature reviews and a scientific council of national and international experts. The method and criteria were evaluated by an expert workshop.

Discussion: The active involvement of all stakeholders from the beginning was crucial for the success. The time constraint proved also beneficial since it allowed the project team to demand focus and cooperation from all experts and stakeholders included.

Conclusion: Our experience demonstrates that, with a clear concept and model, an evidence-based prioritisation including all stakeholders can be achieved. Ultimately however, the prioritisation is a political discussion and decision. Our model can only help base these decisions on sound and reasonable assumptions.

No MeSH data available.


The core elements of the project.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2748184&req=5

fg002: The core elements of the project.

Mentions: The four core elements (see Figure 2) were defined by the team as quintessential for the project. The base line of the project was a structured, quality-assured process, which included regular feedback loops by way of expert questionnaires and incorporation of the comments made by the scientific council. Ultimately, the expert workshop was expected to provide a final validation and evaluation of the methodology and the necessary input for the priority setting. This process was developed following the good practices of project management and elements of different change management methods, such as the Search Conference, Future Search and the Participative Design Workshop [7, 8].


Prioritising integrated care initiatives on a national level. Experiences from Austria.

Eger K, Gleichweit S, Rieder A, Stein KV - Int J Integr Care (2009)

The core elements of the project.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC2748184&req=5

fg002: The core elements of the project.
Mentions: The four core elements (see Figure 2) were defined by the team as quintessential for the project. The base line of the project was a structured, quality-assured process, which included regular feedback loops by way of expert questionnaires and incorporation of the comments made by the scientific council. Ultimately, the expert workshop was expected to provide a final validation and evaluation of the methodology and the necessary input for the priority setting. This process was developed following the good practices of project management and elements of different change management methods, such as the Search Conference, Future Search and the Participative Design Workshop [7, 8].

Bottom Line: Based on a policy initiative and the foundation of the Competence Centre for Integrated Care by the Austrian Social Security Institutions in 2006, the aim of the project was to identify and prioritise potential diseases and target groups for which integrated care models should be developed and implemented within the Austrian health system.The time constraint proved also beneficial since it allowed the project team to demand focus and cooperation from all experts and stakeholders included.Our model can only help base these decisions on sound and reasonable assumptions.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Head of the Competence Centre Integrated Care, Viennese Health Insurance Fund, Wienerbergstrasse 15-19, 1100 Vienna, Austria.

ABSTRACT

Introduction and background: Based on a policy initiative and the foundation of the Competence Centre for Integrated Care by the Austrian Social Security Institutions in 2006, the aim of the project was to identify and prioritise potential diseases and target groups for which integrated care models should be developed and implemented within the Austrian health system. The project was conducted as a cooperation between the Competence Centre for Integrated Care of the Viennese Health Insurance Fund and the Institute of Social Medicine of the Medical University Vienna to ensure the involvement of both, theory and practice. PROJECT REPORT: The focus of the project was to develop an evidence-based process for the identification and prioritisation of diseases and target groups for integrated care measures. As there was no evidence of similar projects elsewhere, the team set out to design the prioritisation process and formulate the selection criteria based on the work in a focus group, literature reviews and a scientific council of national and international experts. The method and criteria were evaluated by an expert workshop.

Discussion: The active involvement of all stakeholders from the beginning was crucial for the success. The time constraint proved also beneficial since it allowed the project team to demand focus and cooperation from all experts and stakeholders included.

Conclusion: Our experience demonstrates that, with a clear concept and model, an evidence-based prioritisation including all stakeholders can be achieved. Ultimately however, the prioritisation is a political discussion and decision. Our model can only help base these decisions on sound and reasonable assumptions.

No MeSH data available.