Is an Integrated Approach Beneficial?


Is it possible to have meaningful collisions between those of different disciplines that result in achieving the common goal? The panel that takes place at Health Public is composed of Neelima Grover, Ishaprasad Bhagwat, Shankar Narayanan and Daniel Radcliffe, who all come from different backgrounds. Some of the viewpoints which were shared are expressed in the paragraphs that follow.

Namrata, the moderator asks to discuss the topic of integrated service delivery, and the panelists responded that if integration is required at the ground level at the time of delivery of health services, then it must begin amongst those formulating policies at a strategy building level, in order for value additions from varied viewpoints and skills to weave together and inform the strategies in development.

Neelima says her philosophy is to think beyond one’s comfort zone or speciality, and that innovation will spring up through inter-disciplinary dialogue. She says, “Once we exit that and have inter-disciplinary dialogue, innovation springs up. The area of healthcare is very complex and requires innovation to break down the silos. Getting out of one’s comfort zone is critical.”

The disagreement springs from the idea that while inter-disciplinary collaboration is good in theory, the reality is that scheduling conflicts, ego issues, opposing mindsets, and getting people on the same page as far as goals are concerned proves to be a major hinderance, as shared by Ishaprasad.

Daniel suggests a way to go about the integration could be to create a bundle of services, possibly financial ones, so that the government and private sector can support each other instead of working in silos at the cost of the health seeking beneficiary. The private sector can work with the government to create a systemized approach, and a financial health buffer in order to ‘avoid the shock of health’.

The panel then moves on to discussing the role the Bihar Innovation Lab can play. It concludes with some suggestions- BIL could be a self sustainable space where people can talk together, and create a demand driven structure. It could also fulfill the need for an R&D arm as wanted by some officials. Shankar emphasizes the importance of doing and action, while Neelima reminds us that keeping disruption to a minimum and assimilation is a priority.

I feel that if this were to materialise, an advantage to creating such a space is getting people out of their own offices allowing them to leave behind the baggage that they carry in terms of daily relationships and projects, and allow them to focus on the task at hand in an entirely new environment, enabling them to achieve powerful results.

This entry was posted in Design!publiC. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *