Patient, Primary Care Provider, and Specialist Perspectives on Specialty Care Coordination in an Integrated Health Care System.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Vimalananda VG
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5726433 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan/Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient, Primary Care Provider, and Specialist Perspectives on Specialty Care Coordination in an Integrated Health Care System.
Vimalananda Varsha G VG Dvorin Kelly K Fincke B Graeme BG Tardiff Nicole N Bokhour Barbara G BG
The Journal of ambulatory care management 20180101 1
Successful coordination of specialty care requires understanding the perspectives of patients, primary care providers, and specialists-that is, the specialty care "triad." This study used qualitative methods to compare these perspectives in an integrated health care system, using diabetes specialty care as an exemplar. Primary care providers and endocrinologists relied on interclinician relationships to coordinate care. Clinicians rarely included patients or other staff in their conceptualizatio ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The National Essential Medicine System (NEMS) is a new policy launched by the Chinese government in 2009. The effects of its introduction have been widely investigated. However, little research has focused on individual patients' perspectives. The purpose of this study was to examine current understanding and opinions of China's NEMS of primary care providers (PCPs) and patients.Providers (n?=?134) and patients (n?=?175) were examined based on self-completed questionnaire surveys conducted in 16 primary healthcare centers in Ningxia, northwestern China. Questions addressed the topics of: participants' socio-demographic characteristics; awareness of NEMS policies; perceptions of NEMS-related changes; satisfactions with NEMS.The patients had a low awareness of NEMS while a majority of providers were familiar with NEMS. All participants were satisfied with the price and quality of essential medicines, but not satisfied with the quantity. Patients felt there had been a decrease in their total medical expenses per visit and improved pharmaceutical services. Most providers perceived no change in their personal or departmental income. The overall satisfaction rate related to NEMS among providers and patients was 92.54 and 93.31%, respectively. Overall there was a link between knowledge about NEMS and satisfaction with the program: patients who had greater knowledge of reimbursement policy, and the providers with greater knowledge of NEMS, reported higher satisfaction.The findings revealed a high level of satisfaction towards NEMS among primary care providers and patients, which is a reflection of the improvements in the health care system. However, some patients' low awareness of NEMS should be paid attention to, as it could reduce their knowledge of essential medicines and hinder the full potential of NEMS.
| S-EPMC4729152 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCommunity health centers are increasingly embracing the Patient Centered Medical Home (PCMH) model to improve quality, access to care, and patient experience while reducing healthcare costs. Care coordination (CC) is an important element of the PCMH model, but implementation and measurability of CC remains a problem within the outpatient setting. Assessing CC is an integral component of quality monitoring in health care systems. This study developed and validated the Medical Home Care Coordination Survey (MHCCS), to fill the gap in assessing CC in primary care from the perspectives of patients and their primary healthcare teams.MethodsWe conducted a review of relevant literature and existing care coordination instruments identified by bibliographic search and contact with experts. After identifying all care coordination domains that could be assessed by primary healthcare team members and patients, we developed a conceptual model. Potentially appropriate items from existing published CC measures, along with newly developed items, were matched to each domain for inclusion. A modified Delphi approach was used to establish content validity. Primary survey data was collected from 232 patients with care transition and/or complex chronic illness needs from the Community Health Center, Inc. and from 164 staff members from 12 community health centers across the country via mail, phone and online survey. The MHCCS was validated for internal consistency, reliability, discriminant and convergent validity. This study was conducted at the Community Health Center, Inc. from January 15, 2012 to July 15, 2014.ResultsThe 13-item MHCCS - Patient and the 32-item MHCCS - Healthcare Team were developed and validated. Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling was used to test the hypothesized domain structure. Four CC domains were confirmed from the patient group and eight were confirmed from the primary healthcare team group. All domains had high reliability (Cronbach's α scores were above 0.8).ConclusionsPatients experience the ultimate output of care coordination services, but primary healthcare staff members are best primed to perceive many of the structural elements of care coordination. The proactive measurement and monitoring of the core domains from both perspectives provides a richer body of information for the continuous improvement of care coordination services. The MHCCS shows promise as a valid and reliable assessment of these CC efforts.
| S-EPMC4482098 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCare coordination has been a common tool for practices seeking to manage complex patients, yet there remains confusion about the most effective and sustainable model. Research exists on opinions of providers of care coordination but there is limited information on perspectives of those in the insurance industry about key elements. We sought to gather opinions from primary care providers and administrators in Minnesota who were involved in a CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) transformational grant implementing COMPASS (Care Of Mental, Physical And Substance-use Syndromes), an evidence-based model of care coordination for depressed patients comorbid with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. We then sought to compare these views with those of private insurance representatives in Minnesota.MethodsWe used qualitative methods to conducted forty-two key informant interviews with primary care providers (n = 15); administrators (n = 15); and insurers (n = 12). We analyzed the recorded and transcribed data, once de-identified, using a frameworks analysis approach.ResultsWe identified six primary themes: 1) a defined scope, rationale, and key partnerships for building comprehensive care coordination programs, 2) effective information exchange, 3) a trained and available workforce, 4) the need for a business model and a financially justifiable program, 5) a need for evaluation and ongoing improvement of care coordination, and 6) the importance of patient and family engagement. Overall consensus across stakeholder groups was high including a call for payment reform to support a valued service. Despite their role in paying for care, insurance representatives did not stress reduced utilization as more important than other outcomes.ConclusionsPrimary care providers and administrators from different organizations and backgrounds, all with experience in COMPASS, in large part agreed with insurance representatives on the main elements of a sustainable model and the need for health reform to sustain this service.
| S-EPMC6359857 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6542960 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSubspecialty ambulatory care visits have doubled in the past 10 years and nearly half of all visits are for follow-up care. Could some of this care be provided by primary care providers (PCPs)?ObjectiveTo determine how often PCPs and specialists agree that a mutual patient's condition could be managed exclusively by the PCP, and to understand PCPs' perspectives on factors that influence decisions about 'repatriation,' or the transfer of patient management to primary care.DesignA mixed method approach including paired surveys of PCPs and specialists about the necessity for ongoing specialty care of mutual patients, and interviews with PCPs about care coordination practices and reasons for differing opinions with specialists.ParticipantsOne hundred and eighty-nine PCPs and 59 physicians representing five medicine subspecialties completed paired surveys for 343 patients. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 PCPs.MeasurementsFor each patient, PCPs and specialists were asked, "Could this diagnosis be managed exclusively by the PCP?"ResultsSpecialists and PCPs agreed that transfer to primary care was appropriate for 16% of patients, whereas 36% had specialists and PCPs who agreed that ongoing specialty care was appropriate. Specialists were half as likely as PCPs to identify patients as appropriate for transfer to primary care. PCPs identified several factors that influence the likelihood that patients will be transferred to primary care, including perceived patient preferences, limited access to physician appointments, excessive workload, inter-clinician communication norms, and differences in clinical judgment. We group these factors into two domains: 'push-back' and 'pull-back' to primary care.ConclusionsAt a large academic medical center, approximately one in six patients receiving ongoing specialty care could potentially be managed exclusively by a PCP. PCPs identified several non-clinical factors to explain continuation of specialty care when patient transfer to PCP is clinically appropriate.
| S-EPMC4175642 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCare coordination is critical for patients with multiple chronic conditions, but fragmentation of care persists. Providers' perspectives of facilitators and barriers to coordination are needed to improve care.ObjectivesWe sought to understand providers' perspectives on care coordination for patients having multiple chronic diseases served by multiple providers.Research designBased upon our earlier survey of patients with multiple chronic conditions, we selected 8 medical centers having high and low coordination. We interviewed providers to identify facilitators and barriers to coordination and compare them between patient-rated high sites and low sites and between primary care (PC)-mental health (MH) and PC-medical/surgical specialty care.SubjectsPhysicians, nurses and other clinicians in PC, cardiology, and MH (N=102) in 8 Veterans Affairs medical centers.ResultsWe identified warm handoffs, professional relationships, and physical proximity as facilitators, and service agreements, reporting relationships and staffing as barriers. PC-MH coordination was reported as better than PC-medical/surgical specialty coordination. Facilitators were more prevalent and barriers less prevalent in sites rated high by patients than sites rated low, and between PC-MH than between PC-specialty care.DiscussionWe noted that professional relationships were highly related to coordination and both affected other facilitators and barriers and were affected by them. We suggested actions to improve relationships directly, and to address other facilitators and barriers that affect relationships and coordination. Among these is the use of the Primary Care Mental Health Integration model.
| S-EPMC8989667 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCare coordination is a critical component of managing high-risk patients, who tend to have complex and multiple medical and psychosocial problems and are typically at high risk for increased hospitalization and incur high health care expenditures. Primary care models such as the patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) are designed to improve care coordination and reduce care fragmentation. However, little is known about how the burden of care coordination for high-risk patients influences PCMH team members' stress.ObjectiveTo evaluate the relationship between provider stress and care coordination time in high-risk patient care and whether availability of help is associated with reduced stress.Study designMultivariable regression analysis of a cross-sectional survey of PCMH primary care providers (PCPs) and nurses.ParticipantsA total of 164 PCPs and 272 nurses in primary care practices at five geographically diverse Veteran Health Administration (VA) medical center health systems.Main measuresThe main outcome variable was provider stress due to high-risk patient care. Independent variables were the reported proportion of high-risk patients in PCP/nurse patient panels, time spent coordinating care for these patients, and provider satisfaction with help received in caring for them.Key resultsThe response rate was 44%. Spending more than 8 h per week coordinating care was significantly associated with a 0.21-point increase in reported provider stress compared to spending 8 h or less per week (95% CI: 0.04-0.39; p = 0.015). The magnitude of the association between stress and care coordination time was diminished when provider satisfaction with help received was included in the model.ConclusionsPerceived provider stress from care of high-risk patients may arise from challenges related to coordinating their care. Our findings suggest that the perception of receiving help for high-risk patient care may be valuable in reducing provider stress.
| S-EPMC5756166 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundU.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis.ObjectiveTo characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals.DesignSemi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).ParticipantsPatients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates).Main measuresQualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs.Key resultsWe interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening.ConclusionsUncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.
| S-EPMC9326136 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOften patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive poor quality care with limited access to pulmonologists. We tested a novel intervention, INtegrating Care After Exacerbation of COPD (InCasE), that improved patient outcomes after hospitalization for COPD. InCasE used population-based identification of patients for proactive e-consultation by pulmonologists, and tailored recommendations with pre-populated orders timed to follow-up with primary care providers (PCPs). Although adoption by PCPs was high, we do not know how PCPs experienced the intervention.ObjectiveOur objective was to assess PCPs' experience with proactive pulmonary e-consults after hospitalization for COPD.MethodsWe conducted a convergent mixed methods study among study PCPs at 2 medical centers and 10 outpatient clinics. PCPs underwent semi-structured interviews and surveys. We performed descriptive analyses on quantitative data and inductive and deductive coding based on prespecified themes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for qualitative data.Key resultsWe conducted 10 interviews and 37 PCPs completed surveys. PCPs perceived InCasE to be acceptable and feasible. Facilitators included the proactive consult approach to patient identification and order entry. PCPs also noted the intervention was respectful and collegial. PCPs had concerns regarding appropriateness related to an unclear role in communicating recommendations to patients. PCPs also noted a potential decrease in autonomy if overused.ConclusionThis evaluation indicates that a proactive e-consult intervention can be deployed to collaboratively manage the health of populations with COPD in a way that is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for primary care. Lessons learned from this study suggest the intervention may be transferable to other settings and specialties.
| S-EPMC9995235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImproving the coordination and integration of health services is recognised nationally and internationally as a key strategy for improving the quality of diabetes care. The Australian Diabetes Alliance Program (DAP) is an integrated care model implemented in the Hunter New England Local Health District (HNELHD), New South Wales (NSW), in which endocrinologists and diabetes educators collaborate with primary care teams via case-conferencing, practice performance review, and education sessions. The objective of this study was to report on general practitioners' (GPs) perspectives on DAP and whether the program impacts on their skills, knowledge, and approach in delivering care to adult patients with type 2 diabetes.MethodsFour primary care practices with high rates of monitoring haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels (> 90% of patients annually) and five practices with low rates of monitoring HbA1c levels (< 80% of patients annually) from HNELHD, NSW provided the sampling frame. A total of nine GPs were interviewed. The transcripts from the interviews were reviewed and analysed to identify emergent patterns and themes.ResultsOverall, GPs were supportive of DAP. They considered that DAP resulted in significant changes in their knowledge, skills, and approach and improved the quality of diabetes care. Taking a more holistic approach to care, including assessing patients with diabetes for co-morbidities and risk factors that may impact on their future health was also noted. DAP was noted to increase the confidence levels of GPs, which enabled active involvement in the provision of diabetes care rather than referring patients for tertiary specialist care. However, some indicated the program could be time consuming and greater flexibility was needed.ConclusionsGPs reported DAP to benefit their knowledge, skills and approach for managing diabetes. Future research will need to investigate how to improve the intensity and flexibility of the program based on the workload of GPs to ensure long-term acceptability of the program.
| S-EPMC10652609 | biostudies-literature