Dataset Information

Measuring primary care organizational capacity for diabetes care coordination: the Diabetes Care Coordination Readiness Assessment.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Not all primary care clinics are prepared to implement care coordination services for chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Understanding true capacity to coordinate care is an important first-step toward establishing effective and efficient care coordination. Yet, we could identify no diabetes-specific instruments to systematically assess readiness and/or status of primary care clinics to engage in diabetes care coordination.

Objective

This report describes the development and initial validation of the Diabetes Care Coordination Readiness Assessment (DCCRA), which is intended to measure primary care clinic readiness to coordinate care for adult patients with diabetes.

Design

The instrument was developed through iterative item generation within a framework of five domains of care coordination: Organizational Capacity, Care Coordination, Clinical Management, Quality Improvement, and Technical Infrastructure.

Participants

Validation data was collected on 39 primary care clinics.

Main measures

Content validity, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the 49-item instrument were assessed.

Key results

Inter-rater agreement indices per item ranged from 0.50 to 1.0. Cronbach's alpha of the entire instrument was 0.964, and for the five domain scales ranged from 0.688 to 0.961. Clinics with existing care coordinators were rated as more ready to support care coordination than clinics without care coordinators for the entire DCCRA and for each domain, supporting construct validity.

Conclusions

As providers increasingly attempt to adopt patient-centered approaches, introduction of the DCCRA is timely and appropriate for assisting clinics with identifying gaps in provision of care coordination services. The DCCRA's strengths include promising psychometric properties. A valid measure of diabetes care coordination readiness should be useful in diabetes program evaluation, assistance with quality improvement initiatives, and measurement of patient-centered care in research.

SUBMITTER: Weeks DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889951 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFew validated assessment tools are available to increase understanding and measure factors associated with sustainment of clinical practices, an increasingly recognized need among clinicians. We describe the development of the Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT), designed to assess factors that contribute to sustainable practices in clinical settings.MethodsSixty-four participants from clinical and research fields participated in concept mapping and were recruited to brainstorm factors that lead to sustained clinical practices. Once repeated factors were removed, participants sorted items based on similarity and rated them by importance and feasibility. Using concept mapping analyses, items were grouped into meaningful domains to develop an initial tool. We then recruited pilot sites and early adopters, for a total of 286 practicing clinicians, to pilot and evaluate the tool. Individuals were recruited from clinical settings across pediatric and adult medical and surgical subspecialties. The data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test hypothesized subscale structure in the instrument. We used root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) to assess fit and thus the ability of CSAT to measure the identified domains.ResultsThe concept mapping produced sorted statements that were edited into items that could be responded to, resulting in the creation of a tool with seven determinant domains and 47 items. The pilot and CFA testing resulted in a final CSAT instrument made up 35 items, five per domain. CFA results demonstrated very good fit of the seven domain structure of the CSAT (RMSEA = 0.049; SRMR = 0.049). Usability testing indicated the CSAT is brief, easy to use, easy to learn, and does not require extensive training. Additionally, the measure scored highly (18/20) on the Psychometric and Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scale (PAPERS). The seven final CSAT domains were engaged staff and leadership, engaged stakeholders, organizational readiness, workflow integration, implementation and training, monitoring and evaluation, and outcomes and effectiveness.ConclusionsThe CSAT is a new reliable assessment tool which allows for greater practical and scientific understanding of contextual factors that enable sustainable clinical practices over time.

Project description:Organizational readiness for change in healthcare settings is an important factor in successful implementation of new policies, programs, and practices. However, research on the topic is hindered by the absence of a brief, reliable, and valid measure. Until such a measure is developed, we cannot advance scientific knowledge about readiness or provide evidence-based guidance to organizational leaders about how to increase readiness. This article presents results of a psychometric assessment of a new measure called Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change (ORIC), which we developed based on Weiner's theory of organizational readiness for change.We conducted four studies to assess the psychometric properties of ORIC. In study one, we assessed the content adequacy of the new measure using quantitative methods. In study two, we examined the measure's factor structure and reliability in a laboratory simulation. In study three, we assessed the reliability and validity of an organization-level measure of readiness based on aggregated individual-level data from study two. In study four, we conducted a small field study utilizing the same analytic methods as in study three.Content adequacy assessment indicated that the items developed to measure change commitment and change efficacy reflected the theoretical content of these two facets of organizational readiness and distinguished the facets from hypothesized determinants of readiness. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis in the lab and field studies revealed two correlated factors, as expected, with good model fit and high item loadings. Reliability analysis in the lab and field studies showed high inter-item consistency for the resulting individual-level scales for change commitment and change efficacy. Inter-rater reliability and inter-rater agreement statistics supported the aggregation of individual level readiness perceptions to the organizational level of analysis.This article provides evidence in support of the ORIC measure. We believe this measure will enable testing of theories about determinants and consequences of organizational readiness and, ultimately, assist healthcare leaders to reduce the number of health organization change efforts that do not achieve desired benefits. Although ORIC shows promise, further assessment is needed to test for convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Project description:BackgroundDelivering care to patients with complex healthcare needs benefits from coordination among healthcare providers. Greater levels of care coordination have been associated with more favorable patient experiences, cost management, and lower utilization of services. Organizational approaches consider how systems, practices, and relationships influence coordination and associated outcomes.ObjectiveExamine measures of organizational coordination and their association with patient experiences of care coordination involving specialists.DesignCross-sectional surveys of patients and primary care providers (PCPs).ParticipantsFinal sample included 3183 patients matched to 233 PCPs from the Veterans Health Administration. All patients had a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus and one of four other conditions: hypertension; congestive heart failure; depression/anxiety; or severe mental illness/posttraumatic stress disorder.Main measuresPatients completed a survey assessing perceptions of coordinated care. We examined ratings on three domains: specialist knowledge management; knowledge integration across settings and time; and knowledge fragmentation across settings and time. We created care coordination measures involving the PCP and three specialty provider types. PCPs provided ratings on relational coordination for specialists, feedback coordination, and team coordination. We aligned patient's specialty services used with corresponding PCP ratings of that specialty.Key resultsPatient ratings were significantly lower on specialist knowledge management and knowledge integration when either PCPs did not use feedback coordination (b = - .20; b = - .17, respectively) or rated feedback coordination lower (b = - .08 for both). Teamwork was significantly related to specialist knowledge management (b = .06), knowledge integration (b = .04); and knowledge fragmentation (b = - .04). Relational coordination was related to coordination between the primary care provider and (i) diabetes specialist (b = .09) and (ii) mental health provider (b = .12).ConclusionsPractices to improve provider coordination within and across primary care and specialty care services may improve patient experiences of care coordination. Improvements in these areas may improve care efficiency and effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundWith the persistent gaps between research and practice in healthcare systems, knowledge translation (KT) has gained significance and importance. Also, in most industrialized countries, there is an increasing emphasis on managing chronic health conditions with the best available evidence. Yet, organizations aiming to improve chronic care (CC) require an adequate level of organizational readiness (OR) for KT.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study is to review and synthesize the existing evidence on conceptual models/frameworks of Organizational Readiness for Change (ORC) in healthcare as the basis for the development of a comprehensive framework of OR for KT in the context of CC.Data sourcesWe conducted a systematic review of the literature on OR for KT in CC using Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Sciences (SCI and SSCI), and others. Search terms included readiness; commitment and change; preparedness; willing to change; organization and administration; and health and social services.Study selectionThe search was limited to studies that had been published between the starting date of each bibliographic database (e.g., 1964 for PubMed) and November 1, 2012. Only papers that refer to a theory, a theoretical component from any framework or model on OR that were applicable to the healthcare domain were considered. We analyzed data using conceptual mapping.Data extractionPairs of authors independently screened the published literature by reviewing their titles and abstracts. Then, the two same reviewers appraised the full text of each study independently.ResultsOverall, we found and synthesized 10 theories, theoretical models and conceptual frameworks relevant to ORC in healthcare described in 38 publications. We identified five core concepts, namely organizational dynamics, change process, innovation readiness, institutional readiness, and personal readiness. We extracted 17 dimensions and 59 sub-dimensions related to these 5 concepts.ConclusionOur findings provide a useful overview for researchers interested in ORC and aims to create a consensus on the core theoretical components of ORC in general and of OR for KT in CC in particular. However, more work is needed to define and validate the core elements of a framework that could help to assess OR for KT in CC.

Project description:BackgroundImplementation researchers recognize the influential role of organizational factors and, thus, seek to assess these factors using quantitative measurement instruments. However, researchers are hindered by instruments that measure similar constructs but rely on different nomenclature and/or definitions. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) provides a taxonomy of constructs derived from prior frameworks and empirical studies of implementation-related constructs. The CFIR includes constructs based on the original Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework which highlights the key roles of strength of evidence for a specific evidence-based intervention (EBI), favorability of organizational context for change, and capacities to facilitate implementation of the EBI. Although the CFIR is among the most frequently used implementation frameworks, it does not include quantitative measures. The Organizational Resource and Context Assessment (ORCA) is a quantitative measurement instrument that was developed based on PARiHS, assessing its three domains. Factors within these three domains are conceptually similar to constructs in the CFIR but do not match directly. The aim of this work was to map ORCA survey items to CFIR constructs to enable direct comparisons and syntheses of findings across studies using the CFIR and/or ORCA.MethodsTwo distinct, independent research teams, each used rigorous constant comparative techniques with deliberation and consensus to map individual items from the ORCA to the five domains and 39 constructs of CFIR.ResultsORCA items were mapped primarily to three of five CFIR domains: Inner Setting, Process, and Intervention Characteristics. The two research teams agreed on 88% of mappings at the higher domain level; at the lower construct level, their mappings aligned for 62.2% of the ORCA items.ConclusionsMapping results reveal that the ORCA focuses measurement prominently on Inner Setting, Process, and Intervention Characteristics. This mapping guide can help improve consistency in measurement and reporting, enabling more efficient comparison and synthesis of findings that use either the ORCA instrument or the CFIR framework. The guide helps advance implementation science utilizing mixed methods by providing CFIR users with quantitative measures for selected constructs and enables ORCA users to map their findings to CFIR constructs.