| Summary: | Swedish agency for health technology assessment and assessment of social services (SBU) published a scientific study on a knowledge gap in coordinated planning for people with mental disabilities. The aim of our paper is to identify research relevant regarding coordinated individual plans (SIP) and individual plan (IP) for people with mental disabilities from both the patient's and professional perspectives and investigate the collaboration and knowledge of the professionals. Inclusion criteria was qualitive and quantitative studies with an aim to study coordinated individual plans for individuals with mental disabilities. Studies in English, Swedish and studies from Scandinavia were included. The searches were performed on the following databases: PubMed, APAPsycInfo, Academic search Elite, Cinahl Plus, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, SocINDEX, Social Services Abstract, Swemed+, SwePub, Socialvetenskaplig tidsskrift. Keywords for the searches were Samordnad individuell plan, Individual plan, Coordination, Mental disorders, Mental retard*, Mental disab*, Patient care management. Eight studies were included as reference material in our paper. A result of our studies of the publishing’s we found that Norway and Sweden have similar legislation for the SIP/IP process. Hence Sweden and Norway are included as subjects for study in this essay. Results was that professions within healthcare and social services both have a lack of knowledge of the SIP/IP process. Furthermore both countries act quite similar, however there is a difference in interpretation in different parts of the respective country in how the planning-process works. The most important results are that there is an extensive lack of knowledge in how the SIP/IP process works. Another result was that the SIP/IP process becomes personal. In Norway, it´s mandatory for a coordinator to be appointed, this is lacking in the Swedish legislation. Depending on which person becomes coordinator, the SIP/IP process is regarded differently and thus end sup different. The analysis showed that boundary spanners could work to enable good collaboration between organizations and thus simplify the SIP/IP process. At the same time, the SIP/IP process becomes vulnerable if the planning process is tied to one person. The analysis shows that a communication system, documentation template and a national approach could also facilitate a homogenous SIP/IP process.
|
|---|
