What is best for Esther? A simple question that moves mindsets and improves care

Abstract

Abstract Background Persons in need of services from different care providers in the health and welfare system often struggle when navigating between them. Connecting and coordinating different health and welfare providers is a common challenge for all involved. This study presents a long-term regional empirical example from Sweden—ESTHER, which has lasted for more than two decades—to show how some of those challenges could be met. The purpose of the study was to increase the understanding of how several care providers together could succeed in improving care by transforming a concept into daily practice, thus contributing with practical implications for other health and welfare contexts. Methods The study is a retrospective longitudinal case study with a qualitative mixed-methods approach. Individual interviews and focus groups were performed with staff members and persons in need of care, and document analyses were conducted. The data covers experiences from 1995 to 2020, analyzed using an open inductive thematic analysis. Results This study shows how co-production and person-centeredness could improve care for persons with multiple care needs involving more than one care provider through a well-established Quality Improvement strategy. Perseverance from a project to a mindset was shaped by promoting systems thinking in daily work and embracing the psychology of change during multidisciplinary, boundary-spanning improvement dialogues. Important areas were Incentives, Work in practice, and Integration, expressed through trust in frontline staff, simple rules, and continuous support from senior managers. A continuous learning approach including the development of local improvement coaches and co-production of care consolidated the integration in daily work. Conclusions The development was facilitated by a simple question: “What is best for Esther?” This question unified people, flattened the hierarchy, and reminded all care providers why they needed to improve together. Continuously focusing on and co-producing with the person in need of care strengthened the concept. Important was engaging the people who know the most—frontline staff and persons in need of care—in combination with permissive leadership and embracing quality improvement dimensions. Those insights can be useful in other health and welfare settings wanting to improve care involving several care providers.