Dataset Information

Development of a novel metric of timely care access to primary care services.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To develop a model for identifying clinic performance at fulfilling next-day and walk-in requests after adjusting for patient demographics and risk.

Data source

Using Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data from 160 VA primary care clinics from 2014 to 2017.

Study design

Using a retrospective cohort design, we applied Bayesian hierarchical regression models to predict provision of timely care, with clinic-level random intercept and slope while adjusting for patient demographics and risk status. Timely care was defined as the provision of an appointment within 48 hours of any patient requesting the clinic's next available appointment or walking in to receive care.

Data collection/extraction methods

We extracted 1 841 210 timely care requests from 613 263 patients.

Principal findings

Across 160 primary care clinics, requests for timely care were fulfilled 86 percent of the time (range 83 percent-88 percent). Our model of timely care fit the data well, with a Bayesian R² of .8. Over the four years of observation, we identified 25 clinics (16 percent) that were either struggling or excelling at providing timely care.

Conclusion

Statistical models of timely care allow for identification of clinics in need of improvement after adjusting for patient demographics and risk status. VA primary care clinics fulfilled 86 percent of timely care requests.

SUBMITTER: Batten AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7080389 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: There are significant health status inequalities in Australia between those people living in rural and remote locations and people living in metropolitan centres. Since almost ninety percent of the population use some form of primary health care service annually, a logical initial step in reducing the disparity in health status is to improve access to health care by specifying those primary health care services that should be considered as "core" and therefore readily available to all Australians regardless of where they live. A systematic review was undertaken to define these "core" services.Using the question "What primary health care services should residents of rural and remote Australia be able to access?", the objective of this paper is to delineate those primary health care core services that should be readily available to all regardless of geography. METHOD: A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from established databases was undertaken. Relevant websites were also searched for grey literature. Key informants were accessed to identify other relevant reference material. All papers were assessed by at least two assessors according to agreed inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 19 papers (7 papers from the peer-reviewed database search and 12 from other grey sources) which met the inclusion criteria. The 19 papers demonstrated substantial variability in both the number and nature of core services. Given this variation, the specification or synthesis of a universal set of core services proved to be a complex and arguably contentious task. Nonetheless, the different primary health care dimensions that should be met through the provision of core services were developed. In addition, the process of identifying core services provided important insights about the need to deliver these services in ways that are "fit-for-purpose" in widely differing geographic contexts. CONCLUSIONS: Defining a suite of core primary health care services is a difficult process. Such a suite should be fit-for-purpose, relevant to the context, and its development should be methodologically clear, appropriate, and evidence-based. The value of identifying core PHC services to both consumers and providers for service planning and monitoring and consequent health outcomes is paramount.

Project description:BackgroundIt is unclear how patient-reported access to primary care differs by physician payment model and participation in team-based care. We examined the association between timely and after-hours access to primary care and physician payment model and participation in team-based care, and sought to assess how access varied by patient characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult (age ? 16 yr) Ontarians who responded to the Ontario Health Care Experience Survey between January 2013 and September 2015, reported having a primary care provider and agreed to have their responses linked to health administrative data. Access measures included the proportion of respondents who reported same-day or next-day access when sick, satisfaction with time to appointment when sick, telephone access and knowledge of an after-hours clinic. We tested the association between practice model and measures of access using logistic regression after stratifying for rurality.ResultsA total of 33 665 respondents met our inclusion criteria. In big cities, respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were less likely to report same-day or next-day access when sick than respondents in enhanced fee-for-service models (team capitation 43%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79-0.98; nonteam capitation 39%, adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.70-0.87; enhanced fee-for-service 46% [reference]). Respondents in team and nonteam capitation models were more likely than those in enhanced fee-for-service models to report that their provider had an after-hours clinic (team capitation 59%, adjusted OR 2.59, 95% CI 2.39-2.81; nonteam capitation 51%, adjusted OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.76-2.04; enhanced fee-for service 34% [reference]). Patterns were similar for respondents in small towns. There was minimal to no difference by model for satisfaction with time to appointment or telephone access.InterpretationIn our setting, there was an association between some types of access to primary care and physician payment model and team-based care, but the direction was not consistent. Different measures of timely access are needed to understand health care system performance.

Project description:IntroductionAccess to high-quality healthcare, including mental healthcare, is a high priority for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Meaningful monitoring of progress will require patient-centered measures of access. To that end, we developed the Perceived Access Inventory focused on access to VA mental health services (PAI-VA). However, VA is purchasing increasing amounts of mental health services from community mental health providers. In this paper, we describe the development of a PAI for users of VA-funded community mental healthcare that incorporates access barriers unique to community care service use and compares the barriers most frequently reported by veterans using community mental health services to those most frequently reported by veterans using VA mental health services.Materials and methodsWe conducted mixed qualitative and quantitative interviews with 25 veterans who had experience using community mental health services through the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). We used opt-out invitation letters to recruit veterans from three geographic regions. Data were collected on sociodemographics, rurality, symptom severity, and service satisfaction. Participants also completed two measures of perceived barriers to mental healthcare: the PAI-VA adapted to focus on access to mental healthcare in the community and Hoge's 13-item measure. This study was reviewed and approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board.ResultsAnalysis of qualitative interview data identified four topics that were not addressed in the PAI-VA: veterans being billed directly by a VCP mental health provider, lack of care coordination and communication between VCP and VA mental health providers, veterans needing to travel to a VA facility to have VCP provider prescriptions filled, and delays in VCP re-authorization. To develop a PAI for community-care users, we created items corresponding to each of the four community-care-specific topics and added them to the 43-item PAI-VA. When we compared the 10 most frequently endorsed barriers to mental healthcare in this study sample to the ten most frequently endorsed by a separate sample of current VA mental healthcare users, six items were common to both groups. The four items unique to community-care were: long waits for the first mental health appointment, lack of awareness of available mental health services, short appointments, and providers' lack of knowledge of military culture.ConclusionsFour new barriers specific to veteran access to community mental healthcare were identified. These barriers, which were largely administrative rather than arising from the clinical encounter itself, were included in the PAI for community care. Study strengths include capturing access barriers from the veteran experience across three geographic regions. Weaknesses include the relatively small number of participants and data collection from an early stage of Veteran Choice Program implementation. As VA expands its coverage of community-based mental healthcare, being able to assess the success of the initiative from the perspective of program users becomes increasingly important. The 47-item PAI for community care offers a useful tool to identify barriers experienced by veterans in accessing mental healthcare in the community, overall and in specific settings, as well as to track the impact of interventions to improve access to mental healthcare.

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to identify the most prioritized strategies in improving access to primary care services (PCS) for homeless immigrants.BackgroundThe issue of improving access to PCS for homeless immigrants is a complex and multifaceted one, and yet there is limited research on the strategies aimed at improving these services. Hence, the need for more studies that directly engage homeless immigrants and service providers in understanding their barriers to accessing PCS and their preferences for improving access to these services.MethodsThe study used a two round Delphi method to elicit the views of stakeholders. The Delphi process utilized a web-based questionnaire. The stakeholders included healthcare providers and voluntary sector providers. The first round had a total of 58 items belonging to 14 categories. The second round comprised a total of 25 items belonging to 12 categories which were preselected based on participants' ranking of their importance in the first round. Participants were required to rank the relative importance of all the items on a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analysed using the STATA-15 software package.FindingsA total of 12 stakeholders participated in both rounds of the Delphi survey. The top three strategies encompassed fighting against discrimination and prejudice, improving and promoting mental health services, and empowering homeless immigrants. These evidence-based strategies hold the potential to support the implementation of healthcare interventions aimed at improving access to PCS and healthcare outcomes for homeless immigrants. However, it is crucial to conduct further research that includes homeless immigrants in the Delphi study to gain insights into the strategies that are most important to them in enhancing access to PCS, as they are the primary target users. Such research will contribute to the development of comprehensive and effective interventions tailored to the specific needs of homeless.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of event notification service (ENS) alerts on health care delivery processes and outcomes for older adults.Materials and methodsWe deployed ENS alerts in 2 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers using regional health information exchange (HIE) networks from March 2016 to December 2019. Alerts targeted VA-based primary care teams when older patients (aged 65+ years) were hospitalized or attended emergency departments (ED) outside the VA system. We employed a concurrent cohort study to compare postdischarge outcomes between patients whose providers received ENS alerts and those that did not (usual care). Outcome measures included: timely follow-up postdischarge (actual phone call within 7 days or an in-person primary care visit within 30 days) and all-cause inpatient or ED readmission within 30 days. Generalized linear mixed models, accounting for clustering by primary care team, were used to compare outcomes between groups.ResultsCompared to usual care, veterans whose primary care team received notification of non-VA acute care encounters were 4 times more likely to have phone contact within 7 days (AOR = 4.10, P < .001) and 2 times more likely to have an in-person visit within 30 days (AOR = 1.98, P = .007). There were no significant differences between groups in hospital or ED utilization within 30 days of index discharge (P = .057).DiscussionENS was associated with increased timely follow-up following non-VA acute care events, but there was no associated change in 30-day readmission rates. Optimization of ENS processes may be required to scale use and impact across health systems.ConclusionGiven the importance of ENS to the VA and other health systems, this study provides guidance for future research on ENS for improving care coordination and population outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02689076. "Regional Data Exchange to Improve Care for Veterans After Non-VA Hospitalization." Registered February 23, 2016.