Dataset Information

A qualitative study of choosing home health care after hospitalization: the unintended consequences of 'patient choice' requirements.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although hospitals are increasingly held accountable for patients' post-discharge outcomes, giving them incentive to help patients choose high-performing home health agencies, little is known about how quality reports inform decision making.

Objective

We aimed to learn how quality reports are used when choosing home care in one northeast state (Rhode Island) .

Design

The study consisted of focus groups with home health consumers and structured interviews with hospital case managers.

Participants

Thirteen consumers and 28 case managers from five hospitals participated in the study.

Approach

We identified key themes and illustrative quotes by audiotaping each session, and then three independent reviewers conducted repeated examination and content analysis.

Key results

No participants were aware of existing state or Medicare home health agency public reports. Case managers provided agency lists to consumers, who routinely asked case managers to tell them which agencies to choose or which were best; but case managers felt unable to directly respond to consumers' requests for help in making the choice, because they did not have additional information to provide and because they feared violating federal laws requiring freedom of patient choice. Case managers also felt that there was little difference in agency quality, although they acknowledged they might not be aware of problems related to post-hospital care.

Conclusions

Home health consumers and hospital case managers were unaware of public reports about home health quality, which limited consumers' ability to make informed decisions and case managers' ability to assist them in that decision-making process. Case managers were otherwise prohibited from recommending specific providers to patients and viewed the 'patient choice' laws as restricting their ability to respond to patients' requests for help in choosing home health agencies. Public reports can be marketed as tools that case managers can use to help patients differentiate among providers, while supporting patient autonomy.

SUBMITTER: Baier RR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4395586 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A qualitative study of choosing home health care after hospitalization: the unintended consequences of 'patient choice' requirements.

Baier Rosa R RR Wysocki Andrea A Gravenstein Stefan S Cooper Emily E Mor Vincent V Clark Melissa M

Journal of general internal medicine 20150109 5

<h4>Background</h4>Although hospitals are increasingly held accountable for patients' post-discharge outcomes, giving them incentive to help patients choose high-performing home health agencies, little is known about how quality reports inform decision making.<h4>Objective</h4>We aimed to learn how quality reports are used when choosing home care in one northeast state (Rhode Island) .<h4>Design</h4>The study consisted of focus groups with home health consumers and structured interviews with hos ...[more]

PMID: 25573089

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the intensive care unit (ICU), continuous patient monitoring is essential to detect critical changes in patients' health statuses and to guide therapy. The implementation of digital health technologies for patient monitoring may further improve patient safety. However, most monitoring devices today are still based on technologies from the 1970s.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate statements by ICU staff on the current patient monitoring systems and their expectations for future technological developments in order to investigate clinical requirements and barriers to the implementation of future patient monitoring.MethodsThis prospective study was conducted at three intensive care units of a German university hospital. Guideline-based interviews with ICU staff-5 physicians, 6 nurses, and 4 respiratory therapists-were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the grounded theory approach.ResultsEvaluating the current monitoring system, ICU staff put high emphasis on usability factors such as intuitiveness and visualization. Trend analysis was rarely used; inadequate alarm management as well as the entanglement of monitoring cables were rated as potential patient safety issues. For a future system, the importance of high usability was again emphasized; wireless, noninvasive, and interoperable monitoring sensors were desired; mobile phones for remote patient monitoring and alarm management optimization were needed; and clinical decision support systems based on artificial intelligence were considered useful. Among perceived barriers to implementation of novel technology were lack of trust, fear of losing clinical skills, fear of increasing workload, and lack of awareness of available digital technologies.ConclusionsThis qualitative study on patient monitoring involves core statements from ICU staff. To promote a rapid and sustainable implementation of digital health solutions in the ICU, all health care stakeholders must focus more on user-derived findings. Results on alarm management or mobile devices may be used to prepare ICU staff to use novel technology, to reduce alarm fatigue, to improve medical device usability, and to advance interoperability standards in intensive care medicine. For digital transformation in health care, increasing the trust and awareness of ICU staff in digital health technology may be an essential prerequisite.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03514173; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514173 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77T1HwOzk).

Project description:BackgroundMost patients with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) never receive alcohol treatment, and experts have recommended management of AUDs in primary care. The Choosing Healthier Drinking Options In primary CarE (CHOICE) trial was a randomized controlled effectiveness trial of a novel intervention for primary care patients at high risk for AUDs. This report describes the conceptual and scientific foundation of the CHOICE model of care, critical elements of the CHOICE trial design consistent with the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR), results of recruitment, and baseline characteristics of the enrolled sample.MethodsThe CHOICE intervention is a multi-contact, extended counseling intervention, based on the Chronic Care Model, shared decision-making, motivational interviewing, and evidence-based options for managing AUDs, designed to be practical in primary care. Outpatients who received care at 3 Veterans Affairs primary care sites in the Pacific Northwest and reported frequent heavy drinking (≥4 drinks/day for women; ≥5 for men) were recruited (2011-2014) into a trial in which half of the participants would be offered additional alcohol-related care from a nurse. CHOICE nurses offered 12 months of patient-centered care, including proactive outreach and engagement, repeated brief motivational interventions, monitoring with and without alcohol biomarkers, medications for AUDs, and/or specialty alcohol treatment as appropriate and per patient preference. A CHOICE nurse practitioner was available to prescribe medications for AUDs.ResultsA total of 304 patients consented to participate in the CHOICE trial. Among consenting participants, 90% were men, the mean age was 51 (range 22-75), and most met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse (14%) or dependence (59%). Many participants also screened positive for tobacco use (44%), depression (45%), anxiety disorders (30-41%) and non-tobacco drug use disorders (19%). At baseline, participants had a median AUDIT score of 18 [Interquartile range (IQR) 14-24] and a median readiness to change drinking score of 5 (IQR 2.75-6.25) on a 1-10 Likert scale.ConclusionThe CHOICE trial tested a patient-centered intervention for AUDs and recruited primary care patients at high risk for AUDs, with a spectrum of severity, co-morbidity, and readiness to change drinking. Trial registration The trial is registered at clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01400581).

Project description:BackgroundDue to a growing shortage in residential care, people with dementia will increasingly be encouraged to live at home for longer. Although people with dementia prefer extended independent living, this also puts more pressure on both their informal and formal care networks. To support (in)formal caregivers of people with dementia, there is growing interest in unobtrusive contactless in-home monitoring technologies that allow caregivers to remotely monitor the lifestyle, health, and safety of their care recipients. Despite their potential, these solutions will only be viable if they meet the expectations and needs of formal and informal caregivers of people with dementia.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the expected benefits, barriers, needs, and requirements toward unobtrusive in-home monitoring from the perspective of formal and informal caregivers of community-dwelling people with dementia.MethodsA combination of semistructured interviews and focus groups was used to collect data among informal (n=19) and formal (n=16) caregivers of people with dementia. Both sets of participants were presented with examples of unobtrusive in-home monitoring followed by questions addressing expected benefits, barriers, and needs. Relevant in-home monitoring goals were identified using a previously developed topic list. Interviews and focus groups were transcribed and inductively analyzed. Requirements for unobtrusive in-home monitoring were elicited based on the procedure of van Velsen and Bergvall-Kåreborn.ResultsFormal and informal caregivers saw unobtrusive in-home monitoring as a support tool that should particularly be used to monitor (the risk of) falls, day and night rhythm, personal hygiene, nocturnal restlessness, and eating and drinking behavior. Generally, (in)formal caregivers reported cross-checking self-care information, extended independent living, objective communication, prevention and proactive measures, emotional reassurance, and personalized and optimized care as the key benefits of unobtrusive in-home monitoring. Main concerns centered around privacy, information overload, and ethical concerns related to dehumanizing care. Furthermore, 16 requirements for unobtrusive in-home monitoring were generated that specified desired functions, how the technology should communicate with the user, which services surrounding the technology were seen as needed, and how the technology should be integrated into the existing work context.ConclusionsDespite the presence of barriers, formal and informal caregivers of people with dementia generally saw value in unobtrusive in-home monitoring, and felt that these systems could contribute to a shift from reactive to more proactive and less obtrusive care. However, the full potential of unobtrusive in-home monitoring can only unfold if relevant concerns are considered. Our requirements can inform the development of more acceptable and goal-directed in-home monitoring technologies to support home-based dementia care.

Project description:Background/objectivesCare-partner support affects outcomes among assisted living (AL) residents. Yet, little is known about care-partner support and its effects on hospitalization during post-acute care transitions. This study examined the variation in care-partner support and its impact on hospitalizations among AL residents receiving Medicare home health (HH) services.DesignAnalysis of national data from the Outcome and Assessment Information Set, Medicare claims, Area Health Resources File, and the Social Deprivation Index File.SettingAL facilities and Medicare HH agencies in the United States.Participants741,926 Medicare HH admissions of AL residents in 2017.MeasurementsCare-partner support during the HH admission was measured based on the type and frequency of assistance from AL staff in seven domains (i.e., activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental ADLs, medication administration, treatment, medical equipment, home safety, and transportation). Care-partner support in each domain was measured as "assistance not needed" (reference group), "Care-partner currently provides assistance," "care-partner need additional training/support to provide assistance" (i.e., inadequate care-partner support), and "care-partner unavailable/unlikely to provide assistance" (i.e., unavailable care-partner support). Outcome was time-to-hospitalization during the HH admission.ResultsAmong the 741,926 Medicare HH admissions of AL residents, inadequate care-partner support was identified for all seven domains that ranged from 13.1% (for transportation) to 49.8% (for treatment), and care-partner support was unavailable from 0.9% (for transportation) to 11.0% (for treatment). In Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for patient covariates and geography, compared with "assistance not needed", having inadequate and unavailable care-partner support was related to increased risk of hospitalization by 8.9% (treatment (hazard ratio (HR) =1.089, P < .001)) to 41.3% (medication administration (HR =1.413, P < .001)).ConclusionFor AL residents receiving HH services, having less care-partner support was related to increased risk of hospitalization, particularly regarding medication administration, medical equipment, and transportation/advocacy.

Dataset Information

A qualitative study of choosing home health care after hospitalization: the unintended consequences of 'patient choice' requirements.

Background

Objective

Design

Participants

Approach

Key results

Conclusions

Publications

A qualitative study of choosing home health care after hospitalization: the unintended consequences of 'patient choice' requirements.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets