Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 9 , Pages 1523-1531, September 2009

Models for Integrating Rehabilitation and Primary Care: A Scoping Study

  • Mary Ann McColl, PhD, MTS

      Affiliations

    • Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to Mary Ann McColl, PhD, MTS, Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, Queen's University, Abramsky Hall, 3rd Fl, Kingston, ON, Canada
    • ,
  • Samuel Shortt, MD, PhD

      Affiliations

    • Canadian Medical Association, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Marshall Godwin, MD, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada
    • ,
  • Karen Smith, MD

      Affiliations

    • Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Kirby Rowe, BSc

      Affiliations

    • Canadian Paraplegic Association-Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Patti O'Brien, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Catherine Donnelly, MSc

      Affiliations

    • Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Article Outline

Abstract 

McColl MA, Shortt S, Godwin M, Smith K, Rowe K, O'Brien P, Donnelly C. Models for integrating rehabilitation and primary care: a scoping study.

Objective

To describe the scope and breadth of knowledge currently available regarding the integration of rehabilitation and primary care services.

Data Sources

Peer-reviewed journals were searched using CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews for the years 1995 through 2007. This process identified 172 items.

Study Selection

To be considered for the subsequent review, the article had to describe a service delivery program that offered primary care and rehabilitation, or services specifically designed for people with chronic conditions/disabilities. Further, it had to be available in English or French. No methodological limitations were applied to screen for levels of evidence.

Data Extraction

Based on these criteria, 38 articles remained that pertained to both primary care and rehabilitation. These were reviewed, sorted, and categorized to discover commonalities and differences among the approaches used to integrating rehabilitation into primary care.

Data Synthesis

In consultation with the team of investigators, it was determined that there were 6 different models for providing primary health care and rehabilitation services in an integrated approach: clinic, outreach, self-management, community-based rehabilitation, shared care, and case management. In addition, a number of themes were identified across models that may act as either supports or impediments to the integration of rehabilitation services into primary care settings: team approach, interprofessional trust, leadership, communication, compensation, accountability, referrals, and population-based approach.

Conclusions

Rehabilitation providers interested in working in the primary care sector may be assisted in conceptualizing the benefits that they bring to the setting by considering these models and issues.

Key Words: Patient care team, Primary health care, Rehabilitation, Review (publication type)

List of Abbreviation: CBR, community-based rehabilitation

 

DESPITE THE RECENT POLICY focus on chronic disease management in primary care, research continues to show that people with chronic conditions and disabilities are systematically disadvantaged when seeking to obtain primary care.1, 2, 3, 4 They are shown to be among the highest users of health care,5 and yet they experience the highest number of unmet needs.6 They report a lack of coordinated primary health care, as well as difficulties accessing specialty services and obtaining required assistive equipment.7, 8, 9

People with chronic conditions and disabilities make up a small percentage of the typical primary care caseload; however, they consume an inordinate proportion of primary care resources.10, 11 They differ from the average primary care patient in that the balance of their health is more easily disturbed; the functional consequences of illness are greater; treatment may be prolonged or complicated because of the disability; and multiple providers and agencies are often involved in their care. Furthermore, disabled patients often do not have the same opportunities for health maintenance and preventive health behavior as their nondisabled counterparts.12 They require intensive management, including a high degree of coordination among multiple providers and agencies, in addition to frequent contact, coaching, and support.11, 13 Family physicians recognize the challenges associated with providing good quality primary care to their patients with chronic and disabling conditions: they require more time and more coordination, they tend to have more complex problems, and they often have needs that are beyond the usual scope of primary care.12

The purpose of this article is to explore models of primary care for people with disabilities and chronic conditions that offer some of these benefits. Reform in the primary care sector has been a subject of media discussion, research, and political imperative for almost a decade. A number of authors observe that the primary health care sector is performing considerably below expectations,11 and that providers are overstressed and dispirited.14 Family medicine has become an increasingly difficult specialty to which to attract residents, and high attrition and low participation rates combine to create a crisis in primary health care access and quality.14, 15, 16

A review of some of the difficulties encountered in providing primary care to patients with chronic and disabling conditions has led to a recommendation for the integration of rehabilitation services in the primary health care setting.13 Leutz17 suggests that the need for integration of rehabilitation services with primary health care depends on the severity and instability of the patient's condition, the duration of the condition, the urgency of intervention, the number and complexity of services involved or needed, and the patient's capacity for self-direction. The more compromised the person on each of these 5 dimensions, the greater the need for fully integrated care. Fully integrated care refers to a case where information, decision-making, and service delivery responsibilities are shared among medical and allied health professionals.17, 18 Someone with a severe condition, needing multiple specialized services, would benefit from an integrated situation where service providers make decisions jointly and function as a team.

Bodenheimer11 proposes as a solution to the difficulties experienced by both patients and physicians in the primary care sector its reorganization as a team-based enterprise. In his view, physician-led teams could undertake effective chronic disease management if payment methods were structured to create incentives for team building, rather than for individual performance. For those patients with complex continuing problems, another proposal of interest is the notion of a “patient-centered medical home,” meaning a physician-directed environment where integrated, coherent, cross-disciplinary care was available to patients.19 The medical home provides lifelong continuity of care, where personal medical services are available, as well as coordinated access to specialty and allied health services. Common to both is the assumption that care of complex patients requires a team, made up of an appropriate mix of primary health care and allied health professionals.

The objective of the present study was to describe the scope and breadth of knowledge currently available regarding the integration of rehabilitation and primary care services. To achieve this objective, a scoping study was conducted to assess the state of knowledge and the need for enhanced research capacity in this area.

Back to Article Outline

Methods 

The scoping study is an emerging methodology for literature synthesis,20 defined as a way of mapping key concepts within a research area by assembling multiple sources and types of evidence available. The emphasis of a scoping study is on comprehensive coverage, rather than on a particular standard of evidence. This approach permits identification of strengths and weaknesses in a body of literature, as well as high-level conceptual observations. Concepts that emerge from the review may either be identified a priori, or they may arise from the data itself.

The scoping study typically unfolds in 5 steps: (1) identify the research question; (2) identify all pertinent studies; (3) select the studies for detailed analysis; (4) chart the data according to key concepts; and (5) collate and summarize the findings of the selected studies.

Identify the Research Question 

The study was guided by the question, “What is known from the existing literature regarding the best ways to integrate rehabilitation services into primary care?”

Identify All Pertinent Studies 

The literature review was conducted to identify a comprehensive set of articles detailing approaches to integrating rehabilitation services with primary care. Inclusion criteria for the scoping review were as follows:

Keywords 

The process began with a traditional keyword-driven electronic search, guided by the following terms: chronic disease; disability; primary health care (including primary care, rural health services, community health services, home care services); rehabilitation (including occupational therapy, physical therapy, physiatry); integrated care; collaborative care.

Databases 

Peer-reviewed journals were searched using the following electronic search engines: CINAHL, MEDLINE, and EBM Reviews.

Years 

The electronic search of peer-reviewed literature spanned the interval between 1995 and 2007.

Next, hand searches were conducted of references from key articles. In this way, it was possible to follow-up on promising literature that might not have been captured by the databases used. To capture the most recent literature, content searches were conducted of e-journals and web-based journals available. Finally, searches were conducted for gray literature on the websites of governments, research institutes, and professional associations. This process identified 172 items.

Select the Studies for Detailed Analysis 

To be considered for the subsequent review, the full set of articles was focused by applying the following exclusion criteria: (1) the article had to describe a service delivery program that offered primary care and rehabilitation, or services specifically designed for people with chronic conditions/disabilities; (2) articles had to be available in English or French; and (3) no methodological limitations were applied to screen for levels of evidence. It was thought that an inclusive approach would provide a better understanding of the current practices integrating rehabilitation into primary care, rather than adopting a stringent definition of methodological parameters.

Based on these criteria, 134 articles were excluded, and 38 articles remained that pertained to both primary care and rehabilitation. The final subset of 38 articles dealt with the integrated delivery of rehabilitation and primary care. This tended to happen in 1 of 3 ways: (1) by introducing rehabilitation personnel into the primary care setting, (2) by including primary care providers into existing community rehabilitation teams, or (3) by creating new entities for the integrated provision of rehabilitation and primary care.

Chart the Data According to Key Concepts 

The final 38 articles were reviewed in detail and repeatedly sorted and categorized in an attempt to discover commonalities and differences among the approaches used to integrating rehabilitation and disability services into primary care. In consultation with the team of investigators, it was determined that there were 6 different models for providing primary health care and rehabilitation services in an integrated approach (table 1). The team of investigators included rehabilitation specialists, allied health professionals, primary care providers, and disability consumer representatives. As such, they constituted an expert group made up of all pertinent stakeholders, providing advice to the study from a variety of perspectives.

Table 1. Summary of Programs and Literature for Each Model
AuthorsYearJournalProgramCountry
Clinic (16)
Gans et al381993Archives of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationModel program in managed care settingUSA
Skargren and Oberg391998PainChiropractic and physiotherapy for back and neck pain in primary careSweden
Roebroeck et al401998Physical TherapyTherapeutic ultrasound in soft tissue injuryNetherlands
Rijken and Dekker411998Clinical RehabilitationPhysiotherapists work in primary care settingsNetherlands
Sicotte et al422002Social Science and MedicineInterprofessional collaboration in community health centersCanada
Brown et al432003Health & Social Care in the CommunityIntegrated, colocated health and social services including rehabUK
Druss et al442003New England Journal of MedicineSubstitution of occupational therapy, physical therapy for medical services in primary careUSA
Pattinson452003Health Service JournalCall center in primary care setting for booking community physiotherapyUK
Beck et al461997Journal of the American Geriatrics SocietyMonthly contact with interdisciplinary team for high-utilization patientsUSA
Gross et al472004Milbank QuarterlyProgram of All-Inclusive Care for the ElderlyUSA
Hansson et al482004Clinical RehabilitationBalance training and vestibular rehab program in primary careSweden
Stock et al492004Journal of the American Geriatrics SocietyChronic Care Model—geriatric clinics including primary careUSA
Asenlof et al502005Physical TherapyIndividually tailored programs for musculoskeletal pain in primary careSweden
Von Korff et al512005PainIndividualized physiotherapy and psychology program for chronic back painUSA
Nordeman et al522006Clinical Journal of PainEarly access to physiotherapy in primary care settingSweden
Luijsterburg et al532008European Spine JournalGeneral practitioner and physiotherapist for treatment of sciaticaNetherlands
Outreach (9)
Allen541996Australian Journal of Rural HealthMobile teams of allied health professionalsAustralia
Lapierre551999Canadian Journal of Nursing LeadershipPrimary care nurse practitioner outreach to rehabilitation facilityCanada
Boult et al562001Journal of the American Geriatrics SocietyGeriatric Evaluation and Management interprofessionalUSA
Rothschild et al342003Journal of Medical SystemsCommunications technology links rehab specialists with primary careUSA
Hultberg et al262003Health PolicyRehab personnel from specialized units offered at community health centersSweden
Lang et al572003SpineMultidisciplinary rehab program associated with local primary careUK
Hendriks et al582003Physical TherapySingle physiotherapy consultation before referral for rehab by primary careNetherlands
Pinnington et al592004Family PracticePhysiotherapy back pain programs associated with health authorityUK
Gruen et al602004Cochrane LibraryReview of specialist outreach models to primary care in remote settingsInternational
Self-management (5)
Worsfold et al611996British Journal of General PracticePrimary care physiotherapy for education and adviceUK
Wells-Federman622000Clinical Excellence for Nurse PractitionersSelf-management interventions in primary care for chronic painUSA
Glazier et al631996Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ)Educational intervention for family physicians and patients with arthritisCanada
Soegaard et al642006European Spine JournalVideotaped exercise program with support group for spinal fusionDenmark
Moffett et al652006RheumatologyPhysiotherapy using cognitive-behavioral pain managementUK
CBR (4)
Eldar662000Disability and RehabilitationIntegration of regional rehabilitation services into primary care settingsIsrael
Kendall et al672000Disability and RehabilitationCBR as a model for integrating rehab in primary careAustralia
Kuipers et al682001Australian Journal of Rural HealthEngaging community in meeting health needs of rural disabledAustralia
Lee142003Asia-Pacific Journal of Public HealthCBR programs coordinated with primary careChina
Case Management (2)
Holland et al102003Journal of the American Geriatrics SocietyHealth coaching for prevention of disability among seniors in communityUSA
Hudgell et al692004Nursing StandardOccupational therapist as care coordinator in Older People's Support ServiceUK
Shared Care (2)
Gallagher701999Clinical Journal of PainSupport and consultation by pain specialists to network of family practicesUSA
Savard et al712003NeuroRehabilitationTele-rehabilitation for specialty consultation to remote family practicesUSA

Collate and Summarize the Findings of the Selected Studies 

The results are presented to correspond with the definitions and features of the 6 models of integrated primary care and rehabilitation that emerged from the scoping review.

Back to Article Outline

Results 

Clinic 

The most common model for integrating rehabilitation services and primary care is the clinic approach. The typical configuration of this type of practice is for a rehabilitation professional, such as an occupational or physical therapist, to work out of an examining room in a family practice. The key to this model is that family physicians and rehabilitation professionals are colocated, resulting in a geographically defined team. The role of professionals is to exercise their usual scope of practice in a concentrated and often condition-specific manner.

The scoping review produced 16 articles discussing the clinic approach. These articles described a range of programs typically designed for special populations, such as elderly and disabled patients. The main advantage of the clinic approach is that it is familiar for both medical and rehabilitation providers, each of whom work exclusively within their usual scope of practice, seeing patients singly and sequentially. The clinic model is efficient from the professional's perspective and affords the opportunity for joint appointments if necessary. The clinic model has a benefit of colocation, and the possibility of developing interprofessional trust and coordination by virtue of both formal and informal communication. From the patient's perspective, the clinic model is familiar, and allows patients to consolidate their care from various providers at a single location, thus potentially minimizing their transportation and associated costs. This model is often found in multiple-provider primary health care organizations, such as community health centers, family health teams, and other shared or group practices.

Some commentators argue that the clinic approach remains too firmly embedded in institutional practice patterns and culture. It has been criticized for failing to exploit its location in the community by extricating patients from their social context in the same way that institutional practice does. It has also been criticized as inefficient because patients tend to be seen individually, leading to lengthy wait lists and treatment delays. The clinic model perpetuates a “siloed” approach to care provision unless specific communication structures between disciplines are in place. The resources needed to operate an integrated rehabilitation clinic within a primary health care organization include therapists, clerical staff, office space, treatment space, and therapy equipment.

Outreach 

Outreach services, as the term suggests, emanate from an institutional base and concentrate on providing professional services to people who could not access them in their usual institutional location. Specific approaches to outreach include mobile teams and satellite units. Outreach models often target remote or resource-poor locations, and attempt to simulate institutional service offerings without the infrastructure provided by the institution. Specialized outreach approaches in collaboration with primary care have been shown to improve health outcomes, provide more consistent care, and decrease the use of inpatient services. Our review identified 9 articles that evaluated the outreach model of integrated rehabilitation and primary care.

The main advantage of the outreach approach is the availability of specific clinical expertise from the tertiary care setting and the subsequent potential for skill development in the primary care setting. The outreach therapist is perceived as an expert who contributes in a specific way to the care of a particular patient or group of patients. The disadvantage, however, is that this expertise is transient, and the opportunity for sustained development of skills and aptitudes for treating disabled patients may not exist. In other words, the care team may be integrated in how they provide care, but the team itself may not be integrated in the community. Another disadvantage is the complexity of institutional arrangements required to cover costs and potential liabilities associated with this arrangement. It is also, of course, dependent on the availability of tertiary care experts in the community. The resources needed to offer an outreach approach within a primary health care organization include expert therapists in the institutional setting, administrative arrangements between primary and tertiary care organizations, office space, meeting space, therapy equipment, and transportation.

Self-Management 

Self-management programs involve the systematic provision of education and support by health care staff to increase patients' skill and confidence in managing their health problems. Self-management has been applied to a diverse range of chronic diseases including asthma, diabetes, stroke, congestive heart failure, and depression. Health promotion models are classified as self-management because of their emphasis on the centrality of the patient in the network of health decision-making, as are independent living models, because of the focus on the patient as consumer and coordinator of his/her own services.

The scoping review identified 5 articles that dealt with a self-management perspective. They all identified a specific population to whom their services were targeted. Many involved self-referral, and all involved a self-directed approach to care. They also all involved linkages within a given geographic community between different levels of services, such as family physicians, home-based services, and community agencies.

The primary advantage of the self-management approach is the extent to which it empowers patients to monitor and care for their own health. It also imparts new skills and information to patients, making them not only more confident but also more effective managers of their health. Therapists working from a self-management perspective may be colocated, or they may have a contractual relationship with the primary care setting to provide self-management education and support. In either case, formal communication mechanisms are essential to the success of this model. The self-management approach is entirely compatible with the rehabilitation philosophy of optimizing independence.

The main disadvantage of this approach is that it is not acceptable to those who prefer to place their confidence in professional service providers—that is, patients who do not wish to or are not capable to take responsibility for their health, but rather prefer to operate within a model where providers assume responsibility. Another disadvantage is the front-end costs of producing educational materials that permit patients to be self-managers. The development of educational materials about primary care in general, and about specific conditions requires a significant up-front commitment of resources. The resources needed to offer a self-management approach within a primary health care organization include therapists, clerical staff, office space, meeting space, educational materials, and follow-up strategies.

Community-Based Rehabilitation 

CBR was designed to deliver rehabilitation services in the developing world, where both material and human resources are scarce. It is based on a community development philosophy, whereby the role of rehabilitation professionals is to advocate for the issues of people with chronic diseases and disabilities and to assist in the mobilization of community resources and supports. CBR typically operates through nongovernmental community organizations, and professionals function as community development workers and are considered one of the resources available within the community to assist in problem solving.

Our review identified 4 articles associated with CBR and primary health care. The chief advantage of the CBR approach is that it typically results in broader, more far-reaching effects than could be achieved on a 1-to-1 basis. It results in the development of skills and capacities in the practice, in the disability community, and in the broader community. It raises the profile of disability issues and increases attention to the need to enhance accessibility and inclusiveness. However, these structural and attitudinal changes do not happen overnight—typically community development is a process that requires a commitment of time and energy over a sustained period. The resources needed to offer a CBR approach within a primary health care organization include therapists with community development skill and experience, information technology, office space, meeting space, liaison with community resources, and transportation.

Case Management 

Another model for providing integrated primary health care and rehabilitation is case management. According to this model, a case manager, on the basis of a referral and intake assessment, marshals and coordinates the necessary services, including family medicine and rehabilitation services, either in the patient's home or other community location. Case managers are usually specialized health professionals who act not within their usual scope of practice, but rather as coordinators, brokers, or liaisons. The scoping review identified 2 articles with a rehabilitation/primary care case management perspective. The focus was on complex, high-needs groups, such as those with severe disabilities, the frail elderly, or injured workers. It was observed that these are populations with special needs beyond standard primary care that required an advanced coordinating function.

Case management has the advantage of tracking and coordinating multiple service providers and organizations. The effective use of case management reduces the number of visits to the primary care physician and instead links the patient with more appropriate service providers who can meet many of the social and functional needs of patients with complex conditions. It is efficient from the patient's perspective because all services and communications are coordinated through one portal, and there is some assurance that information is being efficiently shared among those who need it.

The disadvantage of the case management approach arises if various involved professionals do not acknowledge the case management role and do not cooperate by furnishing information in an accurate and timely fashion. The resources needed to offer a case management approach within a primary health care organization include therapists, clerical staff and information technology, office space, meeting space, liaison with community resources, and transportation.

Both self-management and case management are components of a more general model of primary care termed chronic disease management, usually represented by the Wagner Chronic Care Model.4, 21

Shared Care 

The final model for integrating rehabilitation with primary care is the “shared care” model. It originated in mental health, where a psychiatrist was paired with a family physician, either on a case-specific or a practice-wide basis.22 This model has also been implemented with chronic physical conditions such as diabetes and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.23 Shared care typically refers to 2 providers with the same professional background, one a specialist and one a generalist. While the family physician plays the essential role of coordinating care, providing continuity and bringing a health promotion perspective, the specialist (in this case, a physiatrist) provides condition-specific expertise. One method for implementing a shared care approach is by the use of technology for teleconferencing, especially where family physicians collaborate with condition-specific experts at a distance.24 This approach is dependent on the availability of a suitable conferencing suite and a willingness of providers to adopt this technology, but also can be perceived by some as impersonal.

There were 2 articles on shared care contained in the scoping review. These articles recognized the need for rehabilitation specialists to deal with disability-specific issues, while primary care physicians dealt with general health issues. It was suggested that a general shift in thinking was required from illness and diagnosis to function and dysfunction if optimal service was to be provided to people with chronic diseases and disabilities.

The main advantage of the shared care model is the assurances it provides to the patient of communication and coordination between family physicians and specialists. Not only do clinicians involved in shared care gain information about a specific patient, but they also gain experience and knowledge that can be transferred to future patients with similar problems. Further, the shared care model promotes networking of physicians within a community, and a decreased sense of isolation for the family physician. Like all models of collaborative practice, however, it requires a commitment of time and resources in excess of that required for the more autonomous style of practice. Often, this additional time is not directly compensable. The main disadvantage of this model is that it tends to be restricted to medical inputs. There was no analogous model found of specialist-generalist collaboration between therapists in the primary care and tertiary care settings. The resources required for shared care include tertiary care specialists willing to collaborate, communication mechanisms compatible to the style of practice of both physicians, space for joint clinics if applicable, and office space for the visiting specialist.

Back to Article Outline

Discussion 

In summary, we undertook an extensive review of rehabilitation and primary care literature covering a 13-year period. Six models were identified for integrating rehabilitation and primary care services, to better serve the health needs of people with chronic diseases and disabilities. The most common models were clinic and outreach. Less common, but worthy of consideration were case management, self-management, shared care, and CBR.

A number of themes were identified across models that may act as either supports or impediments to the integration of rehabilitation services into primary care settings.14, 25 The key issue in successful integration appears to be the development of relationships between rehabilitation and primary care providers, 2 groups that seldom come into contact otherwise. For the most part, family physicians practice in a highly independent fashion, corresponding with other providers through written notes or reports as necessary.26 Rehabilitation, on the other hand, is by definition a team enterprise.27 Not only is the team approach unfamiliar in family medicine, the literature suggests it may be anathema to the culture of family medicine.28, 29, 30

The team approach has a number of advantages, including offering different types and degrees of expertise to patients, and generally offering more service and more perspectives on the problems patients face. However, teamwork tends to be perceived by medical practitioners as an inefficient deployment of their human resource.17, 31 The time required to communicate and coordinate with other members of the team is time not spent in patient care, and time not compensated in many reimbursement models. Thus, to be successful, the integration of rehabilitation with primary care must be thought through from the perspective of efficiency, and justified as a means of enhancing rather than diminishing the efficiency of the medical workforce.

The literature also states that interprofessional trust is essential to the success of collaborative relationships. Trust is particularly an issue among professionals who do not have a history of working together, and that issue is amplified by the burden of liability. While all health professionals expect to be trusted on the basis of their credentials, a personal relationship appears to be needed, whereby both parties come to know the professional needs, strengths, and limitations of the other and work toward a partnership. The development of this type of relationship takes time and patience, as well as faith in the notion that the potential payoff is real and worthwhile.

Another factor underlying trust in interprofessional relationships appears to be a thorough knowledge of the role of the other, and some participation in the negotiation of roles. It is probably safe to say that neither rehabilitation professionals nor family physicians adequately understand the role and scope of the other. Thus, a process is needed during which expectations and assumptions are explored, and mutually satisfactory roles are arrived at. This requires that both professionals act as effective advocates for their own role, effective listeners for the other's role, and reasonable partners in terms of accepting limitations and exploring options.

Another issue related to integration that must be confronted if it is to be successfully addressed is the issue of leadership. To the extent that primary care is typically the host organization of these integrated models (because that is where patients go to seek care at the first point of contact), it stands to reason that there will be an expectation on the part of family physicians that they will be in a leadership role in any team that emerges in their setting.11, 32 This may be a difficult issue for rehabilitation professionals to accept because they expect to function as equals with other members of the team; however, we suggest that there will be little progress on integration of rehabilitation into primary care unless this issue is resolved.

One of the key elements to successful integration appears to be structured communication, whether through regular meetings or electronic media.14, 27 Structured formal mechanisms of communication are essential for effective collaboration between rehabilitation and primary care professionals. Whether electronic or paper media are involved, a shared record containing all pertinent information is required.33 Another important issue in communication was associated with colocation of rehabilitation and primary care professionals, and the opportunity this afforded for informal communication and the subsequent development of interprofessional understanding and trust. Rothschild and Lapidos34 observed that in the absence of colocation of service providers, it was possible to construct a “virtual” team with electronic means, so that communication and shared decision-making could happen in a cost-efficient fashion.

A number of articles referred to the importance of regularly scheduled meeting times, with a clear and explicit expectation that all providers would attend. Regular staff meetings provided a forum for airing and resolving issues, and reinforced the shared nature of decision-making in the organization. They also reinforced the administrative structure of the organization and the fact that administrative issues were the business of all, with authority for them typically vested in designated administrative staff rather than in the medical staff. Again, commitment of time to communication with other team members, with staff, or with administration must be seen to enhance the efficiency of the primary care enterprise.19 If physicians perceive that the additional burden of communication detracts from their ability to care for patients or to generate revenue for the practice, it will be resisted either actively or passively.

It is clear from our deliberations that some methods of remuneration in primary care are more amenable to integrating rehabilitation services than others.35 For example, in both fee-for-service and capitation models of physician compensation, revenues for the practice are generated on the basis of the volume of medical services rendered.36 Thus, for other providers to be included in the practice, resources have to literally come out of the physician's pocket to compensate the rehabilitation professional. Under such circumstances, integration is a much more difficult case to make than it would be in a payment model where a global budget flowed to the primary care organization, and all providers and staff were compensated out of that budget.14, 33 The exception to this is the shared care model, which has its own complexities associated with 2 physicians sharing authority and compensation for a single patient.

The scoping review was limited by a number of constraints. Most importantly, the body of literature on integration of rehabilitation and primary care was decidedly small, despite covering 13 years of published and unpublished literature and an international scope of sources. Only 38 articles were found that met both the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined above. Therefore, this must be considered an exploratory attempt to delineate models and a stimulus for further discussion of models of integration, rather than as a definitive and final exposé on the subject. Furthermore, very little was available within this body of literature on evaluation of the models.

Another issue that cannot be resolved satisfactorily for all practices is the issue of accountability and control. Traditionally, physicians are accustomed to self-regulation and independence from administrative control, while rehabilitation professionals are used to working within an organizational structure where they report to an administrative head, who subsequently reports to a community board of governors. The integration of rehabilitation in primary care is best served by an administrative and governance structure that can be seen by all to make decisions in an impartial fashion, acting in the best interests of the organization as a whole and the population it is designed to serve.

The final challenge to the integration of rehabilitation services into primary care is the necessity for rehabilitation professionals to plan and offer services on a population basis.14, 37 Rehabilitation professionals are unaccustomed to managing a caseload of thousands of patients. To do so effectively, they will have to move beyond clinics and home visits where they see patients one at a time, to population-based programs and groups. Rehabilitation professionals are ill-prepared to think in terms of serving a caseload of 10,000, distributed among perhaps 5 family physicians, and yet this is the challenge that is before them if they wish to practice in primary care. To prepare rehabilitation professionals for the realities of the practice opportunities that exist for them in the primary care sector, educational programs must take seriously the challenge of training professionals to assess the needs of a population, to set priorities among competing needs, to analyze policy for indications of willingness to pay for specific services, to undertake case finding and care planning with other health professionals and assistants, to advocate and liaise with community resources for populations as well as patients, and to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions at a population level.27

Back to Article Outline

Conclusions 

Despite the enumerated challenges, this review offers 6 ways in which those committed to the service of people with disabilities might relate to one another in a community primary health care setting. The default approach, and by far the most common, is the clinic approach. Although this approach is familiar to virtually all types of health professionals, it is only one way to promote the collaborative care that is so clearly advocated as the means to not only enhance the provision of primary care, but also to ensure that the most complex patients receive the services they need. Alternative models such as outreach, case management, self-management, and shared care also bring considerable benefits to patients, providers, and payers. Finally, CBR based on community development principles, advocacy, and consumer participation should also be considered as an alternative to professionally dominated models of integrated rehabilitation in primary care.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Safran DG, Wilson IB, Rogers WH, Montgomery JE, Chang H. Primary care quality in the Medicare program: comparing the performance of Medicare health maintenance organizations and traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:757–765
  2. Iezzoni LI, Davis RB, Soukup J, O'Day B. Satisfaction with quality and access to health care among people with disabling conditions. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002;14:369–381
  3. Beatty PW, Hagglund K, Neri MT, Dhont KR, Clark MJ, Hilton SA. Access to health care services among people with chronic or disabling conditions: patterns and predictors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:1417–1425
  4. In:  Dorland J,  McColl MA editor. Emerging approaches to chronic disease management in primary health care. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ Pr; 2007;
  5. McColl MA, Shortt S. Another way to look at high service utilization: the contribution of disability. J Health Services Res Policy. 2006;11:74–80
  6. Bingham SC, Beatty PW. Rates of access to assistive equipment and medical rehabilitation services among people with disabilities. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:487–490
  7. Kroll T, Neri MT. Experiences with care co-ordination among people with cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, or spinal cord injury. Disabil Rehabil. 2003;25:1106–1114
  8. Wallace P, Seidman J. Improving population health and chronic disease management. In:  Dorland J,  McColl MA editor. Emerging approaches to chronic disease management in primary health care. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ Pr; 2007;
  9. Donnelly C, McColl MA, Charlifue S, et al. Utilization, access and satisfaction with primary care among people with spinal cord injuries: a comparison of three countries. Spinal Cord. 2007;45:25–36
  10. Holland SK, Greenberg J, Tidwell L, Newcomer R. Preventing disability through community-based health coaching. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51:265–269
  11. Bodenheimer T. The future of primary care: transforming practice. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2086;2089
  12. McColl MA, Forster D, Shortt SE, et al. Physician experiences providing primary care to people with disabilities. Healthc Policy. 2008;4:e129–e147
  13. McColl MA. Structural determinants of access to health services for people with disabilities. In:  McColl MA,  Jongbloed L editor. Disability and social policy in Canada. 2nd ed.. Toronto: Captus Pr; 2006;p. 293–313
  14. Lee A. The need for integrated primary health care to enhance the effectiveness of health services. Asia Pac J Public Health. 2003;15:62–67
  15. Shortt SE, Green M, Keresztes C. The decline of family practice as a career in Ontario: a discussion paper on interventions to enhance recruitment and retention. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2003;
  16. Goroll AH. The future of primary care: reforming physician payment. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2087;2090
  17. Leutz WN. Five laws for integrating medical and social services: lessons from the United States and the United Kingdom. Milbank Q. 1999;77:77-v
  18. Glendinning C. Breaking down barriers: integrating health and care services for older people in England. Health Policy. 2003;65:139–151
  19. Iglehart JK. No place like home—testing a new model of care delivery. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1200–1202
  20. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Meth. 2005;8:19–32
  21. Royal College of Physicians of London, Royal College of General Practitioners, NHS Alliance. Clinicians, services and commissioning in chronic disease management in the NHS: the need for coordinated management programmes: report of a Joint Working Party of the Royal College of Physicians of London, the Royal College of General Practitioners and the NHS Alliance 2004. http://www.rcgp.org.uk/PDF/Corp_chronic_disease_nhs.pdfAccessed Feb 7, 2008
  22. Byng R, Jones R. Mental health link: the development and formative evaluation of a complex intervention to improve shared care for patients with long-term mental illness. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10:27–36
  23. Mur-Veeman I, van RA, Paulus A. Integrated care: the impact of governmental behaviour on collaborative networks. Health Policy. 1999;49:149–159
  24. Whitten P, Sypher BD, Patterson JD. Transcending the technology of telemedicine: an analysis of telemedicine in North Carolina. Health Commun. 2000;12:109–135
  25. Fisher ES. Building a medical neighborhood for the medical home. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1202–1205
  26. Hultberg EL, Lonnroth K, Allebeck P. Co-financing as a means to improve collaboration between primary health care, social insurance and social service in Sweden (A qualitative study of collaboration experiences among rehabilitation partners). Health Policy. 2003;64:143–152
  27. World Health Organization. Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005;
  28. Hultberg EL, Lonnroth K, Allebeck P. Evaluation of the effect of co-financing on collaboration between health care, social services and social insurance in Sweden. Int J Integr Care. 2002;2:e09
  29. Howard DC, Howard PA, Fassbender K, McCaffrey LA, Thornley R. Primary health care: six dimensions of inquiry. Edmonton: Howard Research and Instructional Systems Inc; 2000;
  30. Mur-Veeman I, Eijkelberg I, Spreeuwenberg C. How to manage the implementation of shared care: a discussion of the role of power, culture and structure in the development of shared care arrangements. J Manag Med. 2001;15:142–155
  31. King N, Ross A. Professional identities and interprofessional relations: evaluation of collaborative community schemes. Soc Work Health Care. 2003;38:51–72
  32. Dorland J, McColl MA. Conclusions and direction for future. In:  Dorland J,  McColl MA editor. Emerging approaches to chronic disease management in primary health care. Montreal: McGill-Queen's Univ Pr; 2007;
  33. Roland M. The future of primary care: lessons from the U.K. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:2087;2092
  34. Rothschild SK, Lapidos S. Virtual integrated practice: integrating teams and technology to manage chronic disease in primary care. J Med Syst. 2003;27:85–93
  35. Rosenthal MB. Beyond pay for performance—emerging models of provider-payment reform. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:1197–1200
  36. McColl MA, Shortt SE, Hunter DJ, Dorland J, Godwin M, Rosser W. Access and quality of primary care for people with complex health needs: a comparison of three payment models. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; 2005;
  37. Rivo ML. It's time to start practicing population-based health care. Fam Pract Manag. 1998;5:37–46
  38. Gans BM, Mann NR, Becker BE. Delivery of primary care to the physically challenged. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74(Suppl 12):S15–S19
  39. Skargren EI, Oberg BE. Predictive factors for 1-year outcome of low-back and neck pain in patients treated in primary care: comparison between the treatment strategies chiropractic and physiotherapy. Pain. 1998;77:201–207
  40. Roebroeck ME, Dekker J, Oostendorp RA. The use of therapeutic ultrasound by physical therapists in Dutch primary health care. Phys Ther. 1998;78:470–478
  41. Rijken PM, Dekker J. Clinical experience of rehabilitation therapists with chronic diseases: a quantitative approach. Clin Rehabil. 1998;12:143–150
  42. Sicotte C, D'Amour D, Moreault MP. Interdisciplinary collaboration within Quebec community health care centres. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:991–1003
  43. Brown L, Tucker C, Domokos T. Evaluating the impact of integrated health and social care teams on older people living in the community. Health Soc Care Community. 2003;11:85–94
  44. Druss BG, Marcus SC, Olfson M, Tanielian T, Pincus HA. Trends in care by nonphysician clinicians in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:130–137
  45. Pattinson J. Primary care (Central reservations). Health Serv J. 2003;113:30–31
  46. Beck A, Scott J, Williams P, et al. A Randomized trial of group outpatient visits for chronically ill older HMO members: the Cooperative Health Care Clinic. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:543–549
  47. Gross DL, Temkin-Greener H, Kunitz S, Mukamel DB. The growing pains of integrated health care for the elderly: lessons from the expansion of PACE. Milbank Q. 2004;82:257–282
  48. Hansson EE, Mansson NO, Hakansson A. Effects of specific rehabilitation for dizziness among patients in primary health care (A randomized controlled trial). Clin Rehabil. 2004;18:558–565
  49. Stock RD, Reece D, Cesario L. Developing a comprehensive interdisciplinary senior healthcare practice. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004;52:2128–2133
  50. Asenlof P, Denison E, Lindberg P. Individually tailored treatment targeting motor behavior, cognition, and disability: 2 experimental single-case studies of patients with recurrent and persistent musculoskeletal pain in primary health care. Phys Ther. 2005;85:1061–1077
  51. Von Korff M, Balderson BH, Saunders K, et al. A trial of an activating intervention for chronic back pain in primary care and physical therapy settings. Pain. 2005;113:323–330
  52. Nordeman L, Nilsson B, Moller M, Gunnarsson R. Early access to physical therapy treatment for subacute low back pain in primary health care: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin J Pain. 2006;22:505–511
  53. Luijsterburg PA, Verhagen AP, Ostelo RW, et al. Physical therapy plus general practitioners' care versus general practitioners' care alone for sciatica: a randomised clinical trial with a 12-month follow-up. Eur Spine J. 2008;17:509–517
  54. Allen O. Anthill and other injuries: a case for mobile allied health teams to remote Australia. Aust J Rural Health. 1996;4:33–42
  55. Lapierre NM. Innovative approach in rehabilitation nursing: providing primary care to tertiary care patients. Can J Nurs Leadersh. 1999;12:23–24
  56. Boult C, Boult LB, Morishita L, Dowd B, Kane RL, Urdangarin CF. A randomized clinical trial of outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49:351–359
  57. Lang E, Liebig K, Kastner S, Neundorfer B, Heuschmann P. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation versus usual care for chronic low back pain in the community: effects on quality of life. Spine J. 2003;3:270–276
  58. Hendriks EJ, Kerssens JJ, Nelson RM, Oostendorp RA, van der ZJ. One-time physical therapist consultation in primary health care. Phys Ther. 2003;83:918–931
  59. Pinnington MA, Miller J, Stanley I. An evaluation of prompt access to physiotherapy in the management of low back pain in primary care. Fam Pract. 2004;21:372–380
  60. Gruen RL, Weeramanthri TS, Knight SE, Bailie RS. Specialist outreach clinics in primary care and rural hospital settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004;(1):CD003798
  61. Worsfold C, Langridge J, Spalding A, Mullee MA. Comparison between primary care physiotherapy education/advice clinics and traditional hospital based physiotherapy treatment: a randomized trial. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46:165–168
  62. Wells-Federman CL. Care of the patient with chronic pain: part II. Clin Excell Nurse Pract. 2000;4:4–12
  63. Glazier RH, Dalby DM, Badley EM, et al. Management of the early and late presentations of rheumatoid arthritis: a survey of Ontario primary care physicians. CMAJ. 1996;155:679–687
  64. Soegaard R, Christensen FB, Lauerberg I, Bunger CE. Lumbar spinal fusion patients' demands to the primary health sector: evaluation of three rehabilitation protocols (A prospective randomized study). Eur Spine J. 2006;15:648–656
  65. Moffett JK, Jackson DA, Gardiner ED, et al. Randomized trial of two physiotherapy interventions for primary care neck and back pain patients: ‘McKenzie’ vs brief physiotherapy pain management. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006;45:1514–1521
  66. Eldar R. Integrated institution: community rehabilitation in developed countries: a proposal. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:266–274
  67. Kendall E, Buys N, Larner J. Community-based service delivery in rehabilitation: the promise and the paradox. Disabil Rehabil. 2000;22:435–445
  68. Kuipers P, Kendall E, Hancock T. Developing a rural community-based disability service (I:Service framework and implementation strategy). Aust J Rural Health. 2001;9:22–28
  69. Hudgell A, Gifford J, Lee L. Intermediate care in a primary care trust. Nurs Stand. 2004;18:40–44
  70. Gallagher RM. The pain medicine and primary care community rehabilitation model: monitored care for pain disorders in multiple settings. Clin J Pain. 1999;15:1–3
  71. Savard L, Borstad A, Tkachuck J, Lauderdale D, Conroy B. Telerehabilitation consultations for clients with neurologic diagnoses: cases from rural Minnesota and American Samoa. NeuroRehabilitation. 2003;18:93–102

 Supported by the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Ontario Rehabilitation Research and Advisory Network, and Ontario Neurotrauma Foundation.

 No commercial party having a direct financial interest in the results of the research supporting this article has or will confer a benefit on the authors or on any organization with which the authors are associated.

PII: S0003-9993(09)00394-3

doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2009.03.017

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
Volume 90, Issue 9 , Pages 1523-1531, September 2009

Article Tools