Dataset Information

ACO Affiliated Hospitals Increase Implementation of Care Coordination Strategies.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Hospitals affiliated with Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may have a greater capacity to collaborate with providers across the care continuum to coordinate care, due to formal risk sharing and payment arrangements. However, little is known about the extent to which ACO affiliated hospitals implement care coordination strategies. OBJECTIVES:To compare the implementation of care coordination strategies between ACO affiliated hospitals (n=269) and unaffiliated hospitals (n=502) and examine whether the implementation of care coordination strategies varies by hospital payment model types. MEASURES:We constructed a care coordination index (CCI) comprised of 12 indicators that describe evidence-based care coordination strategies. Each indicator was scored on a 5-point Likert scale from 1="not used at all" to 5="used widely" by qualified representatives from each hospital. The CCI aggregates scores from each of the 12 individual indicators to a single summary score for each hospital, with a score of 12 corresponding to the lowest and 60 the highest use of care coordination strategies. RESEARCH DESIGN:We used state-fixed effects multivariable linear regression models to estimate the relationship between ACO affiliation, payment model type, and the use care coordination strategies. RESULTS:We found ACO affiliated hospitals reported greater use of care coordination strategies compared to unaffiliated hospitals. Fee-for-service shared savings and partial or global capitation payment models were associated with a greater use of care coordination strategies among ACO affiliated hospitals. CONCLUSION:Our findings suggest ACO affiliation and multiple payment model types are associated with the increased use of care coordination strategies.

SUBMITTER: Anderson AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6417934 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

ACO Affiliated Hospitals Increase Implementation of Care Coordination Strategies.

Anderson Andrew C AC Chen Jie J

Medical care 20190401 4

<h4>Background</h4>Hospitals affiliated with Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) may have a greater capacity to collaborate with providers across the care continuum to coordinate care, due to formal risk sharing and payment arrangements. However, little is known about the extent to which ACO affiliated hospitals implement care coordination strategies.<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the implementation of care coordination strategies between ACO affiliated hospitals (n=269) and unaffiliated hospit ...[more]

PMID: 30807454

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTo date, no studies have reported nationwide adoption of acute care surgery (ACS) or identified structural and/or process variations for the care of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients within such models.MethodsWe surveyed surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at University Health Systems Consortium hospitals using an eight-page postal/e-mail questionnaire querying respondents on hospital and EGS structure/process measures. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons, and multivariable regression models.ResultsOf 319 potential respondents, 258 (81%) completed the surveys. A total of 81 hospitals (31%) had implemented ACS, while 134 (52%) had a traditional general surgeon on-call (GSOC) model. Thirty-eight hospitals (15%) had another model (hybrid). Larger-bed, university-based, teaching hospitals with Level 1 trauma center verification status located in urban areas were more likely to have adopted ACS. In multivariable modeling, hospital type, setting, and trauma center verification predicted ACS implementation. EGS processes of care varied, with 28% of the GSOC hospitals having block time versus 67% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), 45% of the GSOC hospitals providing ICU [intensive care unit] care to EGS patients in a surgical/trauma ICU versus 93% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), 5.7 ± 3.2 surgeons sharing call at GSOC hospitals versus 7.9 ± 2.3 surgeons at ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), and 13% of the GSOC hospitals requiring in-house EGS call versus 75% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001). Among ACS hospitals, there were variations in patient cohorting (EGS patients alone, 25%; EGS + trauma, 21%; EGS + elective, 17%; and EGS + trauma + elective, 30%), data collection (26% had prospective EGS registries), patient hand-offs (56% had attending surgeon presence), and call responsibilities (averaging 4.8 ± 1.3 calls per month, with 60% providing extra call stipend and 40% with no postcall clinical duties).ConclusionThe potential of the ACS on the national crisis in access to EGS care is not fully met. Variations in EGS processes of care among adopters of ACS suggest that standardized criteria for ACS implementation, much like trauma center verification criteria, may be beneficial.

Project description:ImportanceCongress has exempted 11 specialized cancer centers in the United States from the Prospective Payment System (PPS). These centers are also exempt from reporting many of the process-of-care and outcome measures to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that are required for hospitals in the PPS. It is not known how hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers differ from other hospitals affiliated with National Cancer Institute cancer centers (NCI-CCs) or other US hospitals that provide cancer care.ObjectiveTo examine differences between hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers, other hospitals affiliated with NCI-CCs, and other hospitals that provide cancer care on metrics that could be used in public reporting.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study compared hospital characteristics and cancer-related services using data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and US News Best Hospitals rankings. With a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries who underwent 1 of 9 cancer operations (brain tumor resection, colorectal resection, cystectomy, esophagectomy, gastrectomy, liver resection, lung resection, pancreatic resection, prostatectomy) from January 1, 2011, to May 31, 2015, we used hierarchical logistic regression methods to compare differences in 18 postoperative outcomes. Data analysis was conducted from February 2018 to August 2018.Main outcomes and measuresThis study evaluated hospital characteristics, including cancer-specific services, patient comorbidity burden, and cancer surgery postoperative outcomes, from PPS-exempt cancer centers, NCI-affiliated cancer centers, and other US hospitals that provide cancer care.ResultsHospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers (n = 15) and NCI-CCs (n = 54) were similar in hospital characteristics, basic cancer-related services, and patient comorbidity burden. Compared with NCI-CCs, PPS-exempt cancer centers had significantly higher US News reputation scores (mean [SD], 17.5 [24.0] vs 2.6 [4.8]; P < .001) but no differences in oncology patient volume, patient safety ratings, comorbidity burden, nurse staffing, US News total cancer scores, or US News survival scores. Hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers and NCI-CCs had similar adjusted postoperative outcomes for 15 of 18 measures, including mortality, readmission, and surgical site infections. Compared with hospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers, patients treated at NCI-CCs were more likely to have postoperative sepsis (3.1% vs 1.7%; P = .002), acute renal failure (6.2% vs 3.9%; P = .01), and urinary tract infection (6.4% vs 4.0%; P = .002). Compared with the other hospitals that provide cancer care (n = 3578), PPS-exempt cancer center status was associated with improved outcomes for 7 of 18 measures, including mortality, sepsis, acute renal failure, pulmonary failure, and failure to rescue.Conclusions and relevanceHospitals affiliated with PPS-exempt cancer centers and NCI-CCs had generally similar hospital characteristics, patient comorbidity burden, and cancer surgery outcomes. These findings raise questions about why some cancer centers are designated as PPS-exempt and why most hospitals are not required to publicly report cancer-specific quality metrics.

Project description:PURPOSE OF REVIEW:Seven years after TDF/FTC was approved for pre-exposure prophylaxis to reduce risks of HIV infection, there have been large increases in the number of persons using PrEP in the USA. However, recent data on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) use at the state level indicate that people living in the Southern United States are underserved by PrEP relative to their epidemic need. We sought to review possible reasons for inequitable uptake of PrEP in the South and identify implementation approaches to increase PrEP uptake in the South. RECENT FINDINGS:Published literature, data on the locations of PrEP service providers, recent data on PrEP utilization from pharmacy prescription databases, HIV surveillance data and government data on healthcare providers, and health literacy indicate a confluence of factors in the South that are likely limiting PrEP uptake. A variety of approaches are needed to address the complex challenges to PrEP implementation in the South. These include considering alternative PrEP provision strategies (e.g., pharmacy-based PrEP, telemedicine-delivered PrEP), conducting gain-based stigma-reduction campaigns, increasing capacity for reimbursement for PrEP medications and services through policy change to expand Medicaid and to preserve access to Affordable Care Act-compliant health plans, expanding STI screening programs and improving integration of PrEP offering with delivery of positive STI results, using mHealth tools to screen groups at highest risk for HIV (e.g., men who have sex with men) periodically to increase correct perception of risk, and streamlining clinical procedures to allow same-day PrEP starts for patients without obvious medical contraindications. Overcoming the structural, capacity, and policy challenges to increasing PrEP uptake in the South will require innovations in clinical approaches, leveraging technologies, and policy changes. The South has unique challenges to achieving equitable PrEP uptake, and addressing key barriers to expanded PrEP use will require multisectoral responses.

Project description:BackgroundWe piloted a web-based, provider-driven mobile app (DialysisConnect) to fill the communication and care coordination gap between hospitals and dialysis facilities.ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe the development and pilot implementation of DialysisConnect.MethodsDialysisConnect was developed iteratively with focus group and user testing feedback and was made available to 120 potential users at 1 hospital (hospitalists, advanced practice providers [APPs], and care coordinators) and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (nephrologists, APPs, nurses and nurse managers, social workers, and administrative personnel) before the start of the pilot (November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021). Midpilot and end-of-pilot web-based surveys of potential users were also conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to describe system use patterns, ratings of multiple satisfaction items (1=not at all; 3=to a great extent), and provider-selected motivators of and barriers to using DialysisConnect.ResultsThe pilot version of DialysisConnect included clinical information that was automatically uploaded from dialysis facilities, forms for entering critical admission and discharge information, and a direct communication channel. Although physicians comprised most of the potential users of DialysisConnect, APPs and dialysis nurses were the most active users. Activities were unevenly distributed; for example, 1 hospital-based APP recorded most of the admissions (280/309, 90.6%) among patients treated at the pilot dialysis facilities. End-of-pilot ratings of DialysisConnect were generally higher for users versus nonusers (eg, "I can see the potential value of DialysisConnect for my work with dialysis patients": mean 2.8, SD 0.4, vs mean 2.3, SD 0.6; P=.02). Providers most commonly selected reduced time and energy spent gathering information as a motivator (11/26, 42%) and a lack of time to use the system as a barrier (8/26, 31%) at the end of the pilot.ConclusionsThis pilot study found that APPs and nurses were most likely to engage with the system. Survey participants generally viewed the system favorably while identifying substantial barriers to its use. These results inform how best to motivate providers to use this system and similar systems and inform future pragmatic research in care coordination among this and other populations.

Project description:BackgroundTo guide fall prevention efforts, United States organisations, such as the Joint Commission and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, have recommended organisational-level implementation strategies: leadership support, interdisciplinary falls committees, electronic health record tools, and staff, family and patient education. It is unclear whether hospitals adhere to such strategies or how these strategies are operationalised.ObjectiveTo identify and describe the prevalence of specific hospital fall prevention implementation strategies.MethodsIn 2017, we surveyed 80 US hospitals participating in the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators who volunteered for the study. We conducted descriptive statistics by calculating percentages for categorical variables and the median and IQR for count variables.ResultsA total of 60/80 (75%) of hospitals completed the survey. The majority of hospitals were not-for-profit (98%) and urban (90%); more than half were Magnet (53%), small (53%) and teaching (52%). Hospitals were more likely to use leadership strategies, such as updating fall policies in the past 3 years (98%) but less likely to reward staff (40%). Hospitals commonly used interdisciplinary falls committees (83%) but membership rarely included physicians. Hospitals lacked access to electronic health record tools, such as high-risk medication warnings (27%). Education strategies were commonly used; 100% of hospitals provided fall education at staff orientation, but only 22% educated all employees (not just nursing staff).ConclusionsOur study is the first to our knowledge to examine which expert-recommended implementation strategies are being used and how they are being operationalised in US hospitals. Future studies are needed to document fall prevention implementation strategies in detail and to test which implementation strategies are most effective at reducing falls. Additionally, research is needed to evaluate the quality of implementation (eg, fidelity) of fall prevention interventions.

Dataset Information

ACO Affiliated Hospitals Increase Implementation of Care Coordination Strategies.

Publications

ACO Affiliated Hospitals Increase Implementation of Care Coordination Strategies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets