Collaborative Planning in an Uncollaborative World

The purpose of this paper is to expose the concept of collaborative planning to the reality of planning, thereby assessing its efficacy for informing and explaining what planners 'really' do and can do. In this systematic appraisal, collaborative planning is disaggregated into four elements that can enlighten such conceptual frameworks: ontology, epistemology, ideology and methodology. These four lenses help delimit and clarify collaborative planning's strengths and weaknesses. The conceptual debate is related to an empirical investigation of planning processes, ranging from region-wide to local and from statutory to visionary in an arena where special care has been invested in participatory deliberation processes. The final analysis provides a systematic gauge of collaborative planning in light of the extensive empirical evidence, deploying the four conceptual dimensions introduced in part one. This exposes a range of problems not only with the concept itself but also regarding its affinity with the uncollaborative world within which it has to operate. The former shed light on those aspects where collaborative planning as a conceptual tool for practitioners needs to be renovated, while the latter highlight inconsistencies in a political framework that struggles to accommodate both global competitiveness and local democratic collaboration.

Measuring horizontal integration among health care providers in the community: An examination of a collaborative process within a palliative care network

In many countries formal or informal palliative care networks (PCNs) have evolved to better integrate community-based services for individuals with a life-limiting illness. We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a customized tool to determine the perceptions of the processes of palliative care delivery reflective of horizontal integration from the perspective of nurses, physicians and allied health professionals working in a PCN, as well as to assess the utility of this tool. The process elements examined were part of a conceptual framework for evaluating integration of a system of care and centred on interprofessional collaboration. We used the Index of Interdisciplinary Collaboration (IIC) as a basis of measurement. The 86 respondents (85% response rate) placed high value on working collaboratively and most reported being part of an interprofessional team. The survey tool showed utility in identifying strengths and gaps in integration across the network and in detecting variability in some factors according to respondent agency affiliation and profession. Specifically, support for interprofessional communication and evaluative activities were viewed as insufficient. Impediments to these aspects of horizontal integration may be reflective of workload constraints, differences in agency operations or an absence of key structural features.