Revolutionising health and social care: innovative solutions for a brighter tomorrow - a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: In an era marked by rapid technological advancements, changing demographics, and evolving healthcare needs, the landscape of health services has been undergoing a profound transformation. Innovation has emerged as a central force driving change in the healthcare sector, as stakeholders across the globe strive to enhance the quality, accessibility, and efficiency of healthcare services. OBJECTIVE: Within this dynamic context, this systematic literature review explored the barriers and driving forces behind successful health service innovation. METHODS: A comprehensive systematic literature review was conducted using the Griffith University Library search engine and databases that included PubMed, ProQuest, Web of Science, Scopus, and CINHAL. To achieve the study goal, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the associated PRISMA checklist guided the review and reporting method. RESULTS: Findings from this review identified a need for a universal definition of health innovation that encompasses the unique complexities and challenges within this context. In our comprehensive analysis of healthcare innovation, we have uncovered pivotal findings that underscore the indispensable nature of a well-structured framework. CONCLUSIONS: To succeed in fostering innovation within the health and social care sectors, it is imperative to establish an overarching organisational culture that meticulously addresses the following key components: team challenges; communication and collaboration; governance goals and authentic leadership, environmental engagement; and innovation endurance. Through systematic analysis of existing literature, this review offers a definition of health innovation, covering its conceptual foundations, determinants, and barriers, and provides a framework for creating an innovative culture.

Clinicians' perceptions of challenges and strategies of transition from assertive community treatment to less intensive services.

The study aimed to identify clinical strategies and challenges around transition from Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) to less intensive services. Six focus groups were conducted with ACT team leaders (n = 49). Themes were grouped under four intervention-focused domains: (1) client/clinical, (2) family and natural supports, (3) ACT staff and team, and (4) public mental health system. Barriers to transition included beliefs that clients and families would not want to terminate services (due to loss of relationships, fear of failure, preference for ACT model), clinical concerns that transition would not be successful (due to limited client skills, relapse without ACT support), systems challenges (clinic waiting lists, transportation barriers, eligibility restrictions, stigma against ACT clients), and staff ambivalence (loss of relationship with client, impact on caseload). Strategies to support transition included building skills for transition, engaging supports, celebrating success, enhanced coordination with new providers, and integrating and structuring transition in ACT routines.

Development and use of a transition readiness scale to help manage ACT team capacity.

OBJECTIVE: This article describes the creation, validation, and use of an assertive community treatment (ACT) Transition Readiness Scale (TRS) to identify clients who may be ready to transition from ACT services. Scale development was prompted by concerns over long stays on ACT teams and the resulting impact on access. METHODS: Data were extracted from a centralized clinical reporting system for all 1,365 persons enrolled for at least 12 months as of August 2008 in the 42 ACT teams in New York City, including 382 clients of eight of those ACT teams. Data in seven domains deemed relevant to transition readiness were used to calculate readiness scores for each client. An algorithm assigned clients to one of three categories: consider for transition, readiness unclear, and not ready. RESULTS: Via the TRS algorithm, of the 1,365 clients, 192 (14%) were assigned to the consider-for-transition group, 382 (28%) to the unclear group, and 791 (58%) to the not ready group. Clinicians on the eight ACT teams categorized 15% of their current clients in the consider-for-transition group, whereas the TRS algorithm classified 18% in this category. Overall, the TRS agreed with the category assigned by ACT team clinicians in 69% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The TRS may provide ACT teams and program administrators with a tool to identify clients who may be ready to transition to less intensive services, thereby opening scarce slots. Because ACT cases are complex, data summaries can offer useful syntheses of information, particularly when data from several assessments are used to summarize a client's trajectory.