Dataset Information

Effects of Intensive Primary Care on High-Need Patient Experiences: Survey Findings from a Veterans Affairs Randomized Quality Improvement Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home.

Objective

Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction.

Design

Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study.

Participants

Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care.

Intervention

PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff.

Main measures

Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction.

Key results

Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance.

Conclusions

Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.

SUBMITTER: Zulman DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6542922 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Video-based health care can help address access gaps for patients and is rapidly being offered by health care organizations. However, patients who lack access to technology may be left behind in these initiatives. In 2016, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began distributing video-enabled tablets to provide video visits to veterans with health care access barriers. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate veterans' experiences with VA-issued tablets and identify patient characteristics associated with preferences for video visits vs in-person care. METHODS:A baseline survey was sent to the tablet recipients, and a follow-up survey was sent to the respondents 3 to 6 months later. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify patient characteristics associated with preferences for care, and we examined qualitative themes around care preferences using standard content analysis methods for coding the data collected in the open-ended questions. RESULTS:Patient-reported access barriers centered around transportation and health-related challenges, outside commitments, and feeling uncomfortable or uneasy at the VA. Satisfaction with the tablet program was high, and in the follow-up survey, approximately two-thirds of tablet recipients preferred care via a tablet (194/604, 32.1%) or expressed that video-based and in-person care were "about the same" (216/604, 35.7%), whereas one-third (192/604, 31.7%) indicated a preference for in-person care. Patients were significantly more likely to report a preference for video visits (vs a preference for in-person visits or rating them "about the same") if they felt uncomfortable in a VA setting, reported a collaborative communication style with their doctor, had a substance use disorder diagnosis, or lived in a place with better broadband coverage. Patients were less likely to report a preference for video visits if they had more chronic conditions. Qualitative analyses identified four themes related to preferences for video-based care: perceived improvements in access to care, perceived differential quality of care, feasibility of obtaining necessary care, and technology-related challenges. CONCLUSIONS:Many recipients of VA-issued tablets report that video care is equivalent to or preferred to in-person care. Results may inform efforts to identify good candidates for virtual care and interventions to support individuals who experience technical challenges.

Project description:ImportancePeer review is recommended for quality assessment in all cardiac catheterization programs, but, to our knowledge, the content of peer reviews and the potential for quality improvement has not been described.ObjectiveTo characterize the quality improvement content of cardiac catheterization peer reviews.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study used retrospective case review of diagnostic angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention procedures to characterize the major adverse event review process of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking (CART) program from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2016. Data review and analysis took place from November 2017 to August 2018.Main outcomes and measuresPercentage of peer reviews reporting substandard care and opportunities for quality improvement.ResultsA total of 196 643 diagnostic coronary angiograms and 62 576 percutaneous coronary interventions were performed in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of these, 168 (0.1%) were triggered for review because of a self-reported major adverse event during the procedure. Of 152 cases with complete peer review data, care was adjudicated as not meeting the standard of care in 25 cases (16.4%). Concerns about operator judgment were identified in 46 cases (30.3%), about case selection in 26 (17.1%), about trainee supervision in 21 (13.8%), and about technical performance in 46 (30.3%). Reviewers made recommendations to improve operator performance in 63 cases (41.4%) and catheterization laboratory or hospital processes in 58 (38.2%).Conclusions and relevanceWhile substandard care is infrequently identified in peer review of catheterization laboratory complications in the Department of Veterans Affairs, the process often generates recommendations for quality improvement. Peer review programs should focus on identifying quality improvement opportunities and providing meaningful feedback to operators.