Community professionals' management of client care: a mixed-methods systematic review

Niina Kolehmainen, Jill Francis, Edward Duncan, Cynthia Fraser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)
6 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on individual community professionals' caseload management (behaviours related to assessment, treatment and discharging of clients) to identify the main themes and concepts, and to synthesize the findings to inform practice, policy and research.

METHODS: Publications were systematically identified from electronic databases, hand searches of bibliographies, and contact with professional organizations. There were no restrictions on language, the nature of publications or publication year. Procedures were systematically applied for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative and descriptive quantitative methods were used for data analysis and synthesis.

RESULTS: Search criteria yielded 2048 papers of which 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five percent of these were based on research, the rest on professionals' experiences. The papers covered 16 professional and 20 client populations, and their quality was generally poor. Analysis identified six broad themes: definitions of caseload management, caseload measurement and 'tools', models of caseload management practice, client-professional relationship, discharging and professional guidance. Six papers presented issues that related to but did not fit within these themes. Current caseload management tools and models of caseload management practice had a poor evidence base. Five papers described benefits of team-based approaches. Professional guidance for caseload management is limited in detail and relevance to daily practice.

CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a considerable literature on caseload management, it is not possible to make summative conclusions. Policy-makers and professional bodies should encourage and support development of research evidence about the ways to achieve effective, efficient and equitable caseload management. Health and social care services considering implementing caseload management tools or models of practice should critically appraise their basis, and consider their potential advantages as well as disadvantages.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)47-55
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Health Services Research & Policy
Volume15
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2010

Fingerprint

Publications
Practice Management
Research
Professional Practice
Bibliography
Administrative Personnel
Social Work
Language
Databases
Delivery of Health Care
Population
Therapeutics
Data Accuracy

Keywords

  • case management
  • community health services
  • humans
  • professional practice
  • qualitative research
  • workload

Cite this

Community professionals' management of client care : a mixed-methods systematic review. / Kolehmainen, Niina; Francis, Jill; Duncan, Edward; Fraser, Cynthia.

In: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, Vol. 15, No. 1, 01.2010, p. 47-55.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kolehmainen, Niina ; Francis, Jill ; Duncan, Edward ; Fraser, Cynthia. / Community professionals' management of client care : a mixed-methods systematic review. In: Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2010 ; Vol. 15, No. 1. pp. 47-55.
@article{3ad0445245144765a7e6660669965329,
title = "Community professionals' management of client care: a mixed-methods systematic review",
abstract = "OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on individual community professionals' caseload management (behaviours related to assessment, treatment and discharging of clients) to identify the main themes and concepts, and to synthesize the findings to inform practice, policy and research. METHODS: Publications were systematically identified from electronic databases, hand searches of bibliographies, and contact with professional organizations. There were no restrictions on language, the nature of publications or publication year. Procedures were systematically applied for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative and descriptive quantitative methods were used for data analysis and synthesis. RESULTS: Search criteria yielded 2048 papers of which 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five percent of these were based on research, the rest on professionals' experiences. The papers covered 16 professional and 20 client populations, and their quality was generally poor. Analysis identified six broad themes: definitions of caseload management, caseload measurement and 'tools', models of caseload management practice, client-professional relationship, discharging and professional guidance. Six papers presented issues that related to but did not fit within these themes. Current caseload management tools and models of caseload management practice had a poor evidence base. Five papers described benefits of team-based approaches. Professional guidance for caseload management is limited in detail and relevance to daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a considerable literature on caseload management, it is not possible to make summative conclusions. Policy-makers and professional bodies should encourage and support development of research evidence about the ways to achieve effective, efficient and equitable caseload management. Health and social care services considering implementing caseload management tools or models of practice should critically appraise their basis, and consider their potential advantages as well as disadvantages.",
keywords = "case management, community health services, humans, professional practice, qualitative research, workload",
author = "Niina Kolehmainen and Jill Francis and Edward Duncan and Cynthia Fraser",
note = "This is the final draft, after peer-review, of a manuscript published in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. The definitive version, detailed above, is available online at www.rsmjournals.com.",
year = "2010",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008157",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "47--55",
journal = "Journal of Health Services Research & Policy",
issn = "1355-8196",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Community professionals' management of client care

T2 - a mixed-methods systematic review

AU - Kolehmainen, Niina

AU - Francis, Jill

AU - Duncan, Edward

AU - Fraser, Cynthia

N1 - This is the final draft, after peer-review, of a manuscript published in Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. The definitive version, detailed above, is available online at www.rsmjournals.com.

PY - 2010/1

Y1 - 2010/1

N2 - OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on individual community professionals' caseload management (behaviours related to assessment, treatment and discharging of clients) to identify the main themes and concepts, and to synthesize the findings to inform practice, policy and research. METHODS: Publications were systematically identified from electronic databases, hand searches of bibliographies, and contact with professional organizations. There were no restrictions on language, the nature of publications or publication year. Procedures were systematically applied for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative and descriptive quantitative methods were used for data analysis and synthesis. RESULTS: Search criteria yielded 2048 papers of which 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five percent of these were based on research, the rest on professionals' experiences. The papers covered 16 professional and 20 client populations, and their quality was generally poor. Analysis identified six broad themes: definitions of caseload management, caseload measurement and 'tools', models of caseload management practice, client-professional relationship, discharging and professional guidance. Six papers presented issues that related to but did not fit within these themes. Current caseload management tools and models of caseload management practice had a poor evidence base. Five papers described benefits of team-based approaches. Professional guidance for caseload management is limited in detail and relevance to daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a considerable literature on caseload management, it is not possible to make summative conclusions. Policy-makers and professional bodies should encourage and support development of research evidence about the ways to achieve effective, efficient and equitable caseload management. Health and social care services considering implementing caseload management tools or models of practice should critically appraise their basis, and consider their potential advantages as well as disadvantages.

AB - OBJECTIVES: To review the literature on individual community professionals' caseload management (behaviours related to assessment, treatment and discharging of clients) to identify the main themes and concepts, and to synthesize the findings to inform practice, policy and research. METHODS: Publications were systematically identified from electronic databases, hand searches of bibliographies, and contact with professional organizations. There were no restrictions on language, the nature of publications or publication year. Procedures were systematically applied for quality appraisal and data extraction. Qualitative and descriptive quantitative methods were used for data analysis and synthesis. RESULTS: Search criteria yielded 2048 papers of which 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-five percent of these were based on research, the rest on professionals' experiences. The papers covered 16 professional and 20 client populations, and their quality was generally poor. Analysis identified six broad themes: definitions of caseload management, caseload measurement and 'tools', models of caseload management practice, client-professional relationship, discharging and professional guidance. Six papers presented issues that related to but did not fit within these themes. Current caseload management tools and models of caseload management practice had a poor evidence base. Five papers described benefits of team-based approaches. Professional guidance for caseload management is limited in detail and relevance to daily practice. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is a considerable literature on caseload management, it is not possible to make summative conclusions. Policy-makers and professional bodies should encourage and support development of research evidence about the ways to achieve effective, efficient and equitable caseload management. Health and social care services considering implementing caseload management tools or models of practice should critically appraise their basis, and consider their potential advantages as well as disadvantages.

KW - case management

KW - community health services

KW - humans

KW - professional practice

KW - qualitative research

KW - workload

U2 - 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008157

DO - 10.1258/jhsrp.2009.008157

M3 - Article

C2 - 20071502

VL - 15

SP - 47

EP - 55

JO - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

JF - Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

SN - 1355-8196

IS - 1

ER -