IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/eldpol/v2y2022i2p23-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrated, Personalized Care for Older People

Author

Listed:
  • Kurt C. Stange
  • Anne Gaglioti
  • James Bindas

Abstract

Medical science has made magnificent advances by dividing complex problems into their component parts. The strength of clinical trials, and the resulting evidence‐based clinical guidelines, is that they isolate a particular phenomenon or therapy from its context to assess its effect without the confounding of diverse contextual factors. However, the health and health care of whole people, and particularly older people who often live with multiple chronic conditions, is context‐dependent. Older people are not well served by the current fragmented medical knowledge and organization of health care, which is impersonal, often ineffective, and dangerous. More helpful approaches to health care for older people begin with the whole of the person in their family and community circumstance, and then examine the parts of people (including individual strengths, as well as diseases and disabilities) in context. We interpret three case studies in light of research on what patients and primary care clinicians say matters in health care. What matters are 11 domains of care: accessibility, a comprehensive, whole‐person focus; integrating care across acute and chronic illness, prevention, mental health, and life events; coordinating care in a fragmented system; knowing the patient as a person; developing a relationship through key life events; advocacy; providing care in a family context; providing care in a community context; goal‐oriented care; and disease, illness, and prevention management. The health and health care of older people requires contextualized knowledge and personal knowing, supported by integrated systems that treat health care not as a commodity, but as a relationship. La ciencia médica ha hecho magníficos avances al dividir problemas complejos en sus componentes. La fortaleza de los ensayos clínicos y las guías clínicas basadas en evidencia resultantes es que aíslan un fenómeno o terapia en particular de su contexto para evaluar su efecto sin la confusión de diversos factores contextuales. Sin embargo, la salud y el cuidado de la salud de las personas, y en particular de las personas mayores que a menudo viven con múltiples afecciones crónicas, depende del contexto. Las personas mayores no están bien atendidas por el actual conocimiento médico fragmentado y la organización de la atención de la salud, que es impersonal, a menudo ineficaz y peligrosa. Los enfoques más útiles para la atención de la salud de las personas mayores comienzan con la persona en su totalidad en su familia y circunstancias comunitarias, y luego examinan las partes de las personas (incluidas las fortalezas individuales, así como las enfermedades y discapacidades) en contexto. Interpretamos tres estudios de casos a la luz de la investigación sobre lo que los pacientes y los médicos de atención primaria dicen que importa en la atención médica. Lo que importa son 11 dominios de atención: accesibilidad, un enfoque integral de la persona en su totalidad; integración de la atención en enfermedades agudas y crónicas, prevención, salud mental y eventos de la vida; coordinar la atención en un sistema fragmentado; conocer al paciente como persona; desarrollar una relación a través de eventos clave de la vida; Abogacía; brindar cuidados en un contexto familiar; brindar atención en un contexto comunitario; atención orientada a objetivos; y gestión de enfermedades, dolencias y prevención. La salud y el cuidado de la salud de las personas mayores requiere conocimiento contextualizado y conocimiento personal, respaldado por sistemas integrados que traten el cuidado de la salud no como una mercancía, sino como una relación. 医学通过将复杂的问题分解成不同的组成部分,进而取得了巨大的进步。临床试验以及由此产生的循证临床指南的优势在于,它们将特定现象或疗法从情境中分离出来,以评估其效果,并且不会混淆各种情境因素。不过,全民的健康和卫生保健取决于具体情况,这对经常患有多种慢性病的老年人而言尤为如此。当前碎片化的医学知识和对医疗的组织无法很好地为老年人提供服务,这种对医疗的组织缺乏人情味,通常效率低且危险。更有帮助的老年医疗保健方法从家庭成员和社区环境开始,然后在情境中分析人的各个部分(包括个人优势、疾病和残疾)。 根据有关“患者和初级保健临床医生认为的重要医疗保健问题”的研究,我们解释了三个案例研究。重要的11 个保健领域包括:可及性、详尽的全人关注、急性和慢性疾病、预防、心理健康和生活事件的护理一体化、在分散的系统中协调护理、从人的角度看待患者、通过重要的生活事件发展关系、倡导、在家庭情境中提供照护、在社区情境中提供照护、目标导向的护理、以及疾病和预防管理。 老年人的健康和医疗保健需要情境化的知识和个人关怀,并得到综合系统的支持,这些系统将医疗保健视为一种关系,而不是商品。

Suggested Citation

  • Kurt C. Stange & Anne Gaglioti & James Bindas, 2022. "Integrated, Personalized Care for Older People," Journal of Elder Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 23-78, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:23-78
    DOI: 10.18278/jep.2.2.2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.18278/jep.2.2.2
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18278/jep.2.2.2?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maria Panagioti & Jonathan Stokes & Aneez Esmail & Peter Coventry & Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi & Rahul Alam & Peter Bower, 2015. "Multimorbidity and Patient Safety Incidents in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-30, August.
    2. Geiger, H.J., 2002. "Community-oriented primary care: A path to community development," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(11), pages 1713-1716.
    3. Sweeney, S.A. & Bazemore, A. & Phillips Jr., R.L. & Etz, R.S. & Stange, K.C., 2012. "A reemerging political space for linking person and community through primary health care," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 102(S3), pages 336-341.
    4. Mullan, F. & Epstein, L., 2002. "Community-oriented primary care: New relevance in a changing world," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 92(11), pages 1748-1755.
    5. Saul J. Weiner & Alan Schwartz & Rachel Yudkowsky & Gordon D. Schiff & Frances M. Weaver & Julie Goldberg & Kevin B. Weiss, 2007. "Evaluating Physician Performance at Individualizing Care: A Pilot Study Tracking Contextual Errors in Medical Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(6), pages 726-734, November.
    6. John H Wasson & Lynn Ho & Laura Soloway & L Gordon Moore, 2018. "Validation of the What Matters Index: A brief, patient-reported index that guides care for chronic conditions and can substitute for computer-generated risk models," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-13, February.
    7. Randall D. Cebul & James B. Rebitzer & Lowell J. Taylor & Mark E. Votruba, 2008. "Organizational Fragmentation and Care Quality in the U.S. Healthcare System," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(4), pages 93-113, Fall.
    8. Leischow, S.J. & Milstein, B., 2006. "Systems thinking and modeling for public health practice," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 403-405.
    9. Trochim, W.M. & Cabrera, D.A. & Milstein, B. & Gallagher, R.S. & Leischow, S.J., 2006. "Practical challenges of systems thinking and modeling in public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(3), pages 538-546.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jason M. Orr & Jonathon P. Leider & Margaret J. Gutilla, 2023. "System approaches in governmental public health: Findings from an analysis of the literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 159-169, January.
    2. Therese Riley & Liza Hopkins & Maria Gomez & Seanna Davidson & Daniel Chamberlain & Jessica Jacob & Sonia Wutzke, 2021. "A Systems Thinking Methodology for Studying Prevention Efforts in Communities," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 555-573, October.
    3. Wendy Macias, 2023. "Insights to Improve Dietary Guidelines for Americans Communication and Policy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(18), pages 1-11, September.
    4. L. Shakiyla Smith & Natalie J. Wilkins & Roderick J. McClure, 2021. "A systemic approach to achieving population‐level impact in injury and violence prevention," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(1), pages 21-30, January.
    5. Céline Bérard & Martin Cloutier L. & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print halshs-01666605, HAL.
    6. Hazel Squires & James Chilcott & Ronald Akehurst & Jennifer Burr & Michael P. Kelly, 2016. "A systematic literature review of the key challenges for developing the structure of public health economic models," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 61(3), pages 289-298, April.
    7. Julie M. Kapp & Eduardo J. Simoes & Anne DeBiasi & Steven J. Kravet, 2017. "A Conceptual Framework for a Systems Thinking Approach to US Population Health," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(6), pages 686-698, November.
    8. Weeks, Margaret R. & Green Montaque, Helena D. & Lounsbury, David W. & Li, Jianghong & Ferguson, Alice & Warren-Dias, Danielle, 2022. "Using participatory system dynamics learning to support Ryan White Planning Council priority setting and resource allocations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    9. Céline Bérard & L.M., Cloutier & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print hal-02128255, HAL.
    10. Liesel Carlsson & Edith Callaghan & Göran Broman, 2021. "Assessing Community Contributions to Sustainable Food Systems: Dietitians Leverage Practice, Process and Paradigms," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(5), pages 575-601, October.
    11. Monica Bensberg & Andrew Joyce & Erin Wilson, 2021. "Building a Prevention System: Infrastructure to Strengthen Health Promotion Outcomes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, February.
    12. Gates, Emily F., 2016. "Making sense of the emerging conversation in evaluation about systems thinking and complexity science," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 62-73.
    13. Penny R. Breeze & Hazel Squires & Kate Ennis & Petra Meier & Kate Hayes & Nik Lomax & Alan Shiell & Frank Kee & Frank de Vocht & Martin O’Flaherty & Nigel Gilbert & Robin Purshouse & Stewart Robinson , 2023. "Guidance on the use of complex systems models for economic evaluations of public health interventions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(7), pages 1603-1625, July.
    14. Phillip Warsaw & Steven Archambault & Arden He & Stacy Miller, 2021. "The Economic, Social, and Environmental Impacts of Farmers Markets: Recent Evidence from the US," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Lopes, Edilene & Street, Jackie & Carter, Drew & Merlin, Tracy & Stafinski, Tania, 2020. "Understanding Canadian Health Technology Assessment through a systems lens," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(9), pages 952-958.
    16. Rahi Jain & Prashant Narnaware, 2020. "Application of Systems Thinking to Dent Child Malnutrition: A Palghar District, India Case Study," Millennial Asia, , vol. 11(1), pages 79-98, April.
    17. Goldman, Alyssa W. & Kane, Mary, 2014. "Concept mapping and network analysis: An analytic approach to measure ties among constructs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 9-17.
    18. Sonia Adam-Ledunois & Sébastien Damart, 2016. "The art of collective "making do"... When silos are gone!," Post-Print hal-01362382, HAL.
    19. Kelley E. Dugan & Erika A. Mosyjowski & Shanna R. Daly & Lisa R. Lattuca, 2022. "Systems thinking assessments in engineering: A systematic literature review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 840-866, July.
    20. Agha, Leila & Frandsen, Brigham & Rebitzer, James B., 2019. "Fragmented division of labor and healthcare costs: Evidence from moves across regions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 144-159.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:eldpol:v:2:y:2022:i:2:p:23-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.