Publication Review

1. Preliminary information
There are 94 references of the article. It is relevant to a specific theme “A person
-centered integrated care quality framework, based on a qualitative study of patients’
evaluation of care in ligh of chronic care ideals. It is clear, the title consist of 23 characters
that written by Gro Berntsen. The article Received: 30 May 2017 Accepted: 29 May 2018.
Published Online 20 June 2018 in Northern Norway. Publisher and ISBN: BMC Health
Services Research (2018) 18:479. doi.org/10.1186/s12913-018-3246-z

2. Introduction
It is very exemplary that the authors wrote the topic A person-centered integrated care
quality framework. The introduction provides a good, generalized background of the
topic that quickly gives the reader an appreciation of the wide range of outcomes and
experience for persons with multiple long-term and complex conditions related to
person-centered integrated care quality. In the background of publication, the author
mention that person with multimorbidity will receive care from a multitude of specialists.
On the other hand, there were report that numerous single disease treatments, which are
rarely reviewed together. So, It is therefore clear that the author had a reason to measured
about a goal and process person-centered integrated care of chronic care.

3. Development
The article by Gro Berntsen et al. analyzed the Person-Centered Integrated Care namely
PC-IC cyclical process, it consists of a 4-stage goal: 1) Personalized goal setting 2) Care
planning aligned with goals 3) Care delivery according to plan, and 4) Evaluation of goal
attainment. The study is very interesting in term of qualitative evaluative study of patient-
experienced quality of care. Study also applied the PC-IC ideal as a structuring framework
to the “individualized Patient Pathway” (iPP) experience of 19 strategically selected
individuals. The material incorporates data from 19 persons with long-term, complex care
needs from two studies. The authors established IPPs from the electronic health record
with patient follow-up interviews from the prior 6 or 12 months. The author stated in the
conclution that the framework appears meaningful to persons with multimorbidity. In
addition It was very clear to see the findings sound with both theory and other empirical

1
studies in the field, bring credibility, and relevance to the study, although, the small sample
size does not allow for generalizations.
In fact, in daily practice, the use of the PC-IC process is not only used in chronic cases.
It is also used in short-term care or acute cases. For example, in daily practice, patients
with common complaints such as fever, cough, runny nose, or vomiting and diarrhea who
are treated with the PC-IC process will have different effects than those handled modestly.
In the conclusion of the research article, it was also stated that the PC-IC process is
meaningful if it is used on patients with multimorbidity, whereas according to personal
experience, it is also important for patients without multimorbidity to have the PC-IC
process, especially in the first and second stages of the PC-IC process, namely
personalized goal setting and care planning, because every patient who comes without
multimorbidity or with multimorbidity also has a unique and different patient background.
Still in this article, if we look at the point of view of chronic care and patients with
multimorbidity, the PC-IC process studied in this article is very relevant and useful in daily
practice.

4. Conclusion
The authors have successfully provide a comprehensive editorials with well-elaborated
arguments as well as real situation examples for each arguments. In accordance with the
focus of this study, this study used 19 research subjects with different subject backgrounds
and sufficiently represented many chronic cases and multimorbidity in daily practice.
Although in this study there are actually some unrepresented chronic cases such as
Alzheimer's, chronic kidney disease, and metabolic syndrome, in this aspect it is possible
that the research results are slightly less relevant to daily practice. As mentioned earlier,
this study also did not study the PC-IC process in acute disease or short-term cases. Where
this is also important to research considering in daily practice the PC-IC process that has
been studied may be very useful for acute illness or short-term cases.
In conclusion, the PC-IC process that has been examined in this research article is very
important to be implemented in daily practice. Where it is possible if the PC-IC process is
implemented it will be able to improve the quality and safety of patient and health care
services as well.