Dataset Information

Development and psychometric assessment of a survey to measure specialty care coordination as experienced by primary care providers.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the psychometric properties and construct validity of a survey of primary care providers' (PCPs') experience of specialty care coordination, which is a counterpart to our existing survey ("CSC-Specialist") that measures specialists' experience of specialty care coordination.

Data sources

We surveyed PCPs from Veterans Health Administration medical centers and community-based outpatient clinics nationwide (N = 1576) in April 2018.

Study design

We developed candidate items through literature review, existing surveys, PCP interviews, and expert opinion. We used exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis to develop scales and multivariable linear regression to determine their association with PCPs' overall experience of coordination.

Data collection

The online survey included 23 candidate scale items about specialty care coordination and a single item asking respondents to rate their overall experience of specialty care coordination on a 0-10 scale. All VA PCPs were eligible. We sent survey invitations to PCPs following local Section Chiefs' email introduction (N = 926) and by directly emailing two random samples (N = 400 and N = 6653), overall response rate across the three nonoverlapping samples = 24 percent.

Principal findings

Analyses identified 20 items forming 6 scales with strong psychometric properties and predictive power for overall coordination. Two scales are identical to CSC-Specialist scales: "Communication" (k = 3, α = 0.87) and "Data Transfer" (k = 2, α = 0.92); one is similar: "Relationships and Collaboration" (k = 6, α = 0.90). The three remaining scales address the PCP's unique perspective: "Role Clarity" (k = 3, α = 0.85), "Role Agreement" (k = 3, α = 0.75), and "Making Referrals" (k = 3, α = 0.75). The six scales together explained 67 percent of the variance in PCPs' overall coordination experience with specialists.

Conclusions

The Coordination of Specialty Care-Primary Care Provider Survey (CSC-PCP) is a novel 20-item survey that can be used in quality improvement or health services research, alone or in combination with the CSC-Specialist, to evaluate coordination of care as experienced by either or both participants.

SUBMITTER: Vimalananda VG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7518815 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA comprehensive picture of how the US population engages in specialty care use is lacking, even though redesign models focused on specialty care are becoming more popular.ObjectiveTo describe the type of provider, primary care or specialist, most often seen by individuals, to test associations between type of provider most often seen and insurance coverage, and to test associations between the number of generalist and specialist visits and insurance coverage.DesignCross-sectional analysis of 2013-2016 Medicaid Expenditure Panel Survey. Logistic and negative binomial models were used in multivariate regression modeling.ParticipantsDepending on the analysis, the study samples include between 71,402 and 79,518 US residents.Main measuresIndividuals' provider type most often seen, primary care visits, and specialist visits were reported.Key resultsMore than half of the sample (55%) predominantly visited primary care providers (or generalists), and 36% predominantly visited specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting generalists, 80% visited only one type of primary care provider, and 24% also visited one or more specialists. Among individuals primarily visiting specialists, 48% visited only one type of specialist, and 47% did not visit any generalists in the year. Among Medicare enrollees, 50% predominantly visited specialists, and 40% predominantly visited generalists. Medicare enrollment was associated with greater odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05), and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment and having no insurance were associated with lower odds of predominantly visiting specialists (p < 0.05). Medicare enrollment was associated with 13% more generalist visits and 35% more specialist visits, and Medicare-Medicaid enrollment was associated with 38% more generalist visits and 15% more specialist visits (all p < 0.05).ConclusionsGiven the overall frequency of specialty care use and the reliance on multiple specialists in any given year, particularly among Medicare enrollees, public payers are uniquely positioned to promote specialty care redesign and champion improved coordination between specialists.

Project description:PurposeSpecialty care coordination relies on information flowing bidirectionally between all three participants in the "specialty care triad" - patients, primary care providers (PCPs), and specialists. Measures of coordination should strive to account for the perspectives of each. As we previously developed two surveys to measure coordination of specialty care as experienced by PCPs and specialists, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a related survey of specialty care coordination as experienced by the patient, thereby completing the suite of surveys among the triad.MethodsWe developed a draft survey based on literature review, patient interviews, adaptation of existing measures, and development of new items. Survey responses were collected via mail and online in two waves, August 2019-November 2019 and September 2020-May 2021, among patients (N=939) receiving medical specialty care and primary care in the Veterans Affairs health system. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis were used to assess scale structure. Multiple linear regression was used to examine the relationship of the final coordination scales to patients' overall experience of specialty care coordination.ResultsA 38-item measure representing 10 factors that assess the patient's experience of coordination in specialty care among the patient, PCP, and specialist was finalized. Scales demonstrated good internal consistency reliability and, together, explained 59% of the variance in overall coordination. Analyses revealed an unexpected construct describing organization of care between patient and specialist that accounted for patient goals and preferences; this 10-item scale was named Patient-Centered Care Coordination.ConclusionsThe final survey, Coordination of Specialty Care - Patient, or CSC-Patient for short, is a reliable instrument that can be used alone or with its companions (CSC-PCP, CSC-Specialist) to provide a detailed assessment of specialty care coordination and identify targets for coordination improvement.

Project description:ImportanceDisparities in quality of care according to patient race and socioeconomic status persist in the US. Differential referral patterns to specialist physicians might be associated with observed disparities.ObjectiveTo examine whether differences exist between Black and White Medicare beneficiaries in the observed patterns of patient sharing between primary care physicians (PCPs) and physicians in the 6 specialties to which patients were most frequently referred.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional observational study of Black and White Medicare beneficiaries used claims data from 2009 to 2010 on 100% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries who were seen by PCPs and selected high-volume specialists in 12 health care markets with at least 10% of the population being Black. Statistical analyses were conducted from December 20, 2017, to September 30, 2020.ExposuresDifferences in patterns of patient sharing among Black and White patients.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary care physician and specialist degree (the number of other PCPs or specialists to whom each physician is connected) and strength (the number of shared patients per connection, overall, for Black patients and White patients and after equalizing the numbers of Black and White patients per PCP), as well as distance between PCP and patient and specialist zip code centroids.ResultsThe 12 selected markets ranged in size from Manhattan, New York (187 054 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 9794 total physicians), to Tallahassee, Florida (44 644 Black or White beneficiaries seen by at least 2 physicians within an episode of care; 847 total physicians). The percentage of Black beneficiaries ranged from 11.5% (Huntsville, Alabama) to 46.8% (Chicago, Illinois). The mean PCP-specialist degree (number of specialists with whom a PCP shares patients) was lower for Black patients than for White patients. For instance, the mean PCP-cardiologist degree across all markets for White patients was 17.5 compared with 8.8 for Black patients. After sampling White patients to equalize the numbers of patients seen, the degree differences narrowed but were still not equivalent in many markets (eg, for all specialties in Baton Rouge, Louisiana: 4.5 for Black patients vs 5.7 for White patients). Specialist networks among White patients were much larger than those constructed based just on Black patients (eg, for cardiology across all markets: 135 for Black patients vs 330 for White patients), even after equalizing the numbers of patients seen per PCP (123 for Black patients vs 211 for White patients). The overall test for differences in referral patterns was statistically significant for all 6 specialties examined in 7 of the 12 markets and in 5 specialties for another 3.Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that differences exist in specialist referral patterns by race among Medicare beneficiaries. This is an observational study, and thus some differences might have resulted from patient-initiated visits to specialists.

Project description:BackgroundNot all primary care clinics are prepared to implement care coordination services for chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Understanding true capacity to coordinate care is an important first-step toward establishing effective and efficient care coordination. Yet, we could identify no diabetes-specific instruments to systematically assess readiness and/or status of primary care clinics to engage in diabetes care coordination.ObjectiveThis report describes the development and initial validation of the Diabetes Care Coordination Readiness Assessment (DCCRA), which is intended to measure primary care clinic readiness to coordinate care for adult patients with diabetes.DesignThe instrument was developed through iterative item generation within a framework of five domains of care coordination: Organizational Capacity, Care Coordination, Clinical Management, Quality Improvement, and Technical Infrastructure.ParticipantsValidation data was collected on 39 primary care clinics.Main measuresContent validity, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the 49-item instrument were assessed.Key resultsInter-rater agreement indices per item ranged from 0.50 to 1.0. Cronbach's alpha of the entire instrument was 0.964, and for the five domain scales ranged from 0.688 to 0.961. Clinics with existing care coordinators were rated as more ready to support care coordination than clinics without care coordinators for the entire DCCRA and for each domain, supporting construct validity.ConclusionsAs providers increasingly attempt to adopt patient-centered approaches, introduction of the DCCRA is timely and appropriate for assisting clinics with identifying gaps in provision of care coordination services. The DCCRA's strengths include promising psychometric properties. A valid measure of diabetes care coordination readiness should be useful in diabetes program evaluation, assistance with quality improvement initiatives, and measurement of patient-centered care in research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although the importance of care coordination (CC) is well-recognized, cancer patients often receive poorly coordinated care across varied care settings and different oncology providers. Efforts to improve cancer care are hampered by lack of adequate measures. In this two-part, mixed-method study, we describe the development, refinement, and validation of a new care coordination instrument (CCI) designed to assess cancer patients' perception of CC. METHODS:In Study 1, an initial CCI was developed incorporating questions based on literature review. The items were then modified following four field tests conducted in a large academic hospital with oncology nurses (n?=?20) and cancer patients (n?=?120). This modified instrument was used to determine whether the CCI was able to distinguish CC between two practices (30 GI and 30 myeloma patients) within the same hospital setting. In Study 2, 68 patients receiving community-based care participated in seven focus groups. Based on these discussions, the CCI items were again refined, and psychometric evaluation was conducted to assess the quality of the instrument. RESULTS:Based on field tests, 3 domains of the CCI, Communication, Navigation, and Operational, were defined as critical components of CC. The Operational domain evaluates efficiency of care and is unique to this CCI. The field test demonstrated that GI patients reported significantly better CC Overall and for the Communication and Navigation domains (all p?<?.05). In Study 2, patients expressed concordance with the CCI items and their CC experiences, establishing validity of the CCI. Qualitative analysis of the focus group discussions indicated that the items with the highest frequencies of participants' comments were related to the concepts of Navigator, Team, Survey, and Communication. Quantitative analysis identified items with a limited response range or high rates of "neutral" responses; accordingly, those items were removed. The final CCI survey is a 29 item, multiple-choice questionnaire with excellent reliability, Cronbach's ??=?.922. CONCLUSIONS:We developed a novel, patient-centered tool with excellent psychometric properties that can be utilized across varied practice settings to assess patients' perception of cancer care coordination. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Not required; retrospectively registered ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03594006 20 July 2018.

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.