Skip to main content
Log in

Integrated Care Programme for older adults: Analysis and improvement

  • Published:
The journal of nutrition, health & aging



We aimed to in-depth analyse the Integrated Care Programme for older in- and out-patients implemented for more than 25 years at the Hospital Universitario de Getafe, in Madrid, Spain. We identify the strengths and barriers hindering the full operation, and we proposed a technological solution that overcame these constraints and facilitated integration.


First, we carried out a comprehensive analysis of the integrated care program at the HUG following Case Study Research; the primary unit of analysis was the Geriatrics service and its clinical units. Secondary sources of analyses were professionals’ insights (obtained thought direct observation and interviews) and statistics on the service. After the identification of the barriers preventing complete success; we designed a Health Information System and developed a mock-up that was validated with the professionals. Finally, we passed the specifications to the Information System Unit at the Hospital to develop and integrate the system into the hospital one.


The Geriatrics Service of the University Hospital of Getafe, pertaining to the public Healthcare System of the Region of Madrid (Spain).


No patient participated in the study. All staff from the Geriatrics Service and the ICT manager of the hospital contributed to the design of the Health Information System; and 3 geriatricians from the Service and 1 primary care physician validated it.


First, we qualitative analysed the Integrated Care Program taking as dimensions eight facilitators towards integrated care. In response, we proposed an integrated information system solution. Later, we interviewed the staff geriatricians to analyse the Integrated Care Programme. Finally, we validated our proposed system in terms of usability and user experience using the System Usability Score-SUS and the User Experience Questionnaire-UEQ, respectively.


The Integrated Care Program has demonstrated a high impact since its launch; however, the lack of integration in terms of information system was hindering the full deployment. We have designed an integrated information system which has been validated by physicians and nurses from the Geriatrics Service in terms of usability. We obtained a SUS score of 81 (68 is considered to be the cut-off point for usable systems). Besides, the perception of these professionals on our system was ‘Excellent’ in 5 out of the 6 items covered by UEQ (Attractiveness, Perspicuity, Dependability, Stimulation and Novelty) and ‘Good’ in terms of the 1 remaining (Efficiency), where there is still room for improvement.


Our dedicated Health Information System is a robust solution to bridge information gaps and facilitate the complete integration of our Integrated Care Programme for older in- and outpatients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Salive, M. E. Multimorbidity in older adults. Epidemiologic Reviews, 2013;35(1), 1–75. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Marengoni, A., Angleman, S., Melis, R., Mangialasche, F., Karp, A., Garmen, A., & Fratiglioni, L. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Research Reviews, 2011;10(4), 4–430. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Villalba, E., Sánchez, A., Peinado, I., Mansoa, F.J. Strategic Intelligence Monitor on Personal Health Systems Phase 3 (SIMPHS 3)–Integrated care programme for older in-and out-patients Geriatrics Service. University Hospital of Getafe Case Study Report. Institute for Prospective and Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre, 2015. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  4. Kodner, D. L., & Spreeuwenberg, C. Integrated care: meaning, logic, applications, and implications–a discussion paper. International Journal of Integrated Care, 2002;2. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  5. European Commission. European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing 2013. Reference Sites. Excellent innovation for ageing A European Guide. Available at:

  6. Yin, R. K. Case study research: Design and methods 2013. Sage publications. Available at:

  7. Baxter, P., & Jack, S., Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report, 2008;13(4), 4–544. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  8. Runeson, P., Host, M., Rainer, A., & Regnell, B.. Case study research in software engineering: Guidelines and examples, 2012. John Wiley & Sons. Available at:

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Villalba, E., Casas, I., Abadie, F., & Lluch, M. Integrated personal health and care services deployment: experiences in eight European countries. International journal of medical informatics, 2013;82(7), 7–626. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Weidenhaupt, K., Pohl, K., Jarke, M., & Haumer, P. Scenarios in system development: current practice. Software, IEEE, 1998;15(2), 2–34. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Börjeson, L., Höjer, M., Dreborg, K. H., Ekvall, T., & Finnveden, G. Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures, 2006;38(7), 7–723. Available at: 34545cf95fba7e765cebb9d

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sutcliffe, A. Scenario-based requirements engineering. In Requirements engineering conference, 2003. Proceedings. 11th IEEE international 2003;(pp. 320-329). IEEE. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. Scenario based design. Human-computer interaction. Boca Raton, FL, 2009;145–162. Available at: k8l6gM#v=onepage&q=Scenario%20based%20design.%20Human-computer%20interaction.&f=false

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. User-centered design. Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2004;37(4), 4–445. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sauer, J., & Sonderegger, A. The influence of prototype fidelity and aesthetics of design in usability tests: Effects on user behaviour, subjective evaluation and emotion. Applied ergonomics, 2009;40(4), 4–670. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dahl, Y., Alsos, O. A., & Svanæs, D.. Fidelity considerations for simulation-based usability assessments of mobile ICT for hospitals. Intl. Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2010;26(5), 5–445. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Blackler, A.. Applications of high and low fidelity prototypes in researching intuitive interaction, 2009. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  18. Blackler, A., Popovic, V., & Mahar, D. Studies of Intuitive Interaction employing observation and concurrent protocol. In DS 32: Proceedings of DESIGN 2004, the 8th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  19. Brooke, J. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry, 1996;189(194), 194-4. Available at: pdf

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rauschenberger, M., Schrepp, M., Cota, M. P., Olschner, S., & Thomaschewski, J. Efficient measurement of the user experience of interactive products. How to use the user experience questionnaire (UEQ). example: spanish language version. IJIMAI, 2013;2(1), 1–39.Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  21. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., & Schrepp, M. Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire (2008;pp. 63-76). Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Available at:

  22. Kaplan, B., & Shaw, N. T. Future directions in evaluation research: people, organizational, and social issues. Methods of Information in Medicine-Methodik der Information in der Medizin, 2004;43(3), 3–215. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fried, L. P., Tangen, C. M., Walston, J., Newman, A. B., Hirsch, C., Gottdiener, J., & McBurnie, M. A. Frailty in older adults evidence for a phenotype. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 2001;56(3), M146–M157. Available at:

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lawton, M. P. The functional assessment of elderly people. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 1971;19(6), 6–465. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ellis, Graham, and Peter Langhorne. «Comprehensive geriatric assessment for older hospital patients.» British medical bulletin 2005;71.1: 45–59. Available at:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Welsh, T. J., Adam L. Gordon, and J. R. Gladman. Comprehensive geriatric assessment–a guide for the non-specialist. International journal of clinical practice 2014;68.3: 290–293. Available at:

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Yoon, J., Zulman, D., Scott, J. Y., & Maciejewski, M. L. Costs associated with multimorbidity among VApatients. Medical care, 2014;52, S31–S36. Available at:

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dolin, R. H., Alschuler, L., Boyer, S., Beebe, C., Behlen, F. M., Biron, P. V., & Shabo, A. HL7 clinical document architecture, release 2. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2006;13(1), 1–30. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bangor, A., Kortum, P., & Miller, J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies, 2009;4(3), 3–114. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hebert, R. An urgent need to improve life conditions of seniors. The journal of nutrition, health & aging, 2010;14(8), 8–711. Not available in the public domain.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lee, J. C., McCrickard, D. S., & Stevens, K. T. Examining the foundations of agile usability with eXtreme scenario-based design. In Agile Conference, 2009. AGILE’09. 2009;pp. 3-10). IEEE. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hwang, M. I., & Thorn, R. G. The effect of user engagement on system success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Information & Management, 1999;35(4), 4–229. Available at:

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. Interaction design: Beyond human-computer, 2002. Available at: design%3A%20Beyond%20human-computer.&f=false

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wright, P., & McCarthy, J. Empathy and experience in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2008;pp. 637–646. ACM. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

  35. Paixão Jr, C. M., & Reichenheim, M. E. Uma revisão sobre instrumentos de avaliação do estado funcional do idoso A review of functional status evaluation instruments in the elderly. Cad. Saúde Pública, 2005;21(1), 1–7. Available at: http://www.scielosp. org/pdf/csp/v21n1/02.pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sourial, N., Bergman, H., Karunananthan, S., Wolfson, C., Payette, H., Gutierrez-Robledo, L. M., & Guralnik, J. Implementing frailty into clinical practice: a cautionary tale, 2013. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, glt053. Available at:

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Villalba-Mora.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sánchez, A., Villalba-Mora, E., Peinado, I. et al. Integrated Care Programme for older adults: Analysis and improvement. J Nutr Health Aging 21, 867–873 (2017).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

Key words