Dataset Information

The importance of understanding and measuring health system structural, functional, and clinical integration.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

We explore if there are ways to characterize health systems-not already revealed by secondary data-that could provide new insights into differences in health system performance. We sought to collect rich qualitative data to reveal whether and to what extent health systems vary in important ways across dimensions of structural, functional, and clinical integration.

Data sources

Interviews with 162 c-suite executives of 24 health systems in four states conducted through "virtual" site visits between 2017 and 2019.

Study design

Exploratory study using thematic comparative analysis to describe factors that may lead to high performance.

Data collection

We used maximum variation sampling to achieve diversity in size and performance. We conducted, transcribed, coded, and analyzed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with system executives, covering such topics as market context, health system origin, organizational structure, governance features, and relationship of health system to affiliated hospitals and POs.

Principal findings

Health systems vary widely in size and ownership type, complexity of organization and governance arrangements, and ability to take on risk. Structural, functional, and clinical integration vary across systems, with considerable activity around centralizing business functions, aligning financial incentives with physicians, establishing enterprise-wide EHR, and moving toward single signatory contracting. Executives describe clinical integration as more difficult to achieve, but essential. Studies that treat "health system" as a binary variable may be inappropriately aggregating for analysis health systems of very different types, at different degrees of maturity, and at different stages of structural, functional, and clinical integration. As a result, a "signal" indicating performance may be distorted by the "noise."

Conclusions

Developing ways to account for the complex structures of today's health systems can enhance future efforts to study systems as complex organizations, to assess their performance, and to better understand the effects of payment innovation, care redesign, and other reforms.

SUBMITTER: Ridgely MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7720708 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe importance of a health research system (HRS), namely an instrument for developing and enabling health systems, is increasing, particularly in developing countries. Assessing the perceptions of system performers is a necessary part of system analysis, which seeks to recognize a system's strengths and limitations aiming towards improvement. This study assesses the perceptions of policy-makers, academicians and experts regarding the HRS concept and its importance to generate insights for system strengthening. In Palestine, HRS is just emerging, helping to address the many public health-related challenges faced by the country.MethodsThe study was implemented from January until July 2016, targeting three sectors, namely relevant government institutions, schools of public health, and major local and international health agencies. Data was collected through 52 in-depth interviews and six focus group discussions (FGDs) with policy-makers, academics, directors and experts. Participants and institutions were selected based on stated criteria and peer review. Data were translated, transcribed, checked and then imported to a software program (MAXQDA 12) for thematic and content analysis.ResultsA total of 104 experts participated, wherein 52 were interviewed and 52 participated in the six FGDs. The HRS concept, as defined by WHO, was conceptualized differently among participants with unclear delineations between various components. Inconsistencies appeared when participants attempted to conceptualize HRS in broader contexts, though HRS goals and functions were sufficiently delineated. The majority of participants agreed that HRS correlates with notions of 'improvement' and recognized HRS 'as a significant gain'. Neglect of HRS was perceived as a big loss.ConclusionsThe study revealed that the level of understanding of HRS among health experts in Palestine is inadequate and not sufficiently conceptualized for its application. Findings also underlined the need to establish a central governance coordination body that promotes HRS understanding, awareness and culture as an enabler for HRS strengthening.

Project description:ObjectiveExamine care integration-efforts to unify disparate parts of health care organizations to generate synergy across activities occurring within and between them-to understand whether and at which organizational level health systems impact care quality and staff experience.Data sourcesSurveys administered to one practice manager (56/59) and up to 26 staff (828/1360) in 59 practice sites within 24 physician organizations within 17 health systems in four states (2017-2019).Study designWe developed manager and staff surveys to collect data on organizational, social, and clinical process integration, at four organizational levels: practice site, physician organization, health system, and outside health systems. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and regression.Principal findingsManagers and staff perceived opportunity for improvement across most types of care integration and organizational levels. Managers/staff perceived little variation in care integration across health systems. They perceived better care integration within practice sites than within physician organizations, health systems, and outside health systems-up to 38 percentage points (pp) lower (P < .001) outside health systems compared to within practice sites. Of nine clinical process integration measures, one standard deviation (SD) (7.2-pp) increase in use of evidence-based care related to 6.4-pp and 8.9-pp increases in perceived quality of care by practice sites and health systems, respectively, and a 4.5-pp increase in staff job satisfaction; one SD (9.7-pp) increase in integration of social services and community resources related to a 7.0-pp increase in perceived quality of care by health systems; one SD (6.9-pp) increase in patient engagement related to a 6.4-pp increase in job satisfaction and a 4.6-pp decrease in burnout; and one SD (10.6-pp) increase in integration of diabetic eye examinations related to a 5.5-pp increase in job satisfaction (all P < .05).ConclusionsMeasures of clinical process integration related to higher staff ratings of quality and experience. Action is needed to improve care integration within and outside health systems.

Project description:AimThe aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.BackgroundDespite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.MethodsA qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.FindingsA total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine system integration with physician specialties across markets and the association between local system characteristics and their patterns of physician integration.Data sourcesData come from the AHRQ Compendium of US Health Systems and IQVIA OneKey database.Study designWe examined the change from 2016 to 2018 in the percentage of physicians in systems, focusing on primary care and the 10 most numerous nonhospital-based specialties across the 382 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) in the US. We also categorized systems by ownership, mission, and payment program participation and examined how those characteristics were related to their patterns of physician integration in 2018.Data collection/extraction methodsWe examined local healthcare markets (MSAs) and the hospitals and physicians that are part of integrated systems that operate in these markets. We characterized markets by hospital and insurer concentration and systems by type of ownership and by whether they have an academic medical center (AMC), a 340B hospital, or accountable care organization.Principal findingsBetween 2016 and 2018, system participation increased for primary care and the 10 other physician specialties we examined. In 2018, physicians in specialties associated with lucrative hospital services were the most commonly integrated with systems including hematology-oncology (57%), cardiology (55%), and general surgery (44%); however, rates varied substantially across markets. For most specialties, high market concentration by insurers and hospital-systems was associated with lower rates of physician integration. In addition, systems with AMCs and publicly owned systems more commonly affiliated with specialties unrelated to the physicians' potential contribution to hospital revenue, and investor-owned systems demonstrated more limited physician integration.ConclusionsVariation in physician integration across markets and system characteristics reflects physician and systems' motivations. These integration strategies are associated with the financial interests of systems and other strategic goals (eg, medical education, and serving low-income populations).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The rapid advancements in health care can make it difficult for general physicians and specialists alike to keep their knowledge up to date. In medicine today, there are deficiencies in the application of knowledge translation (KT) in clinical practice. Some medical procedures are not required, and therefore, no value is added to the patient's care. These unnecessary procedures increase pressures on the health care system's resources, reduce the quality of care, and expose the patients to stress and to other potential risks. KT tools and better access to medical recommendations can lead to improvements in physicians' decision-making processes depending on the patient's specific clinical situation. These tools can provide the physicians with the available options and promote an efficient professional practice. Software for the Evolution of Knowledge in MEDicine (SEKMED) is a technological solution providing access to high-quality evidence, based on just-in-time principles, in the application of medical recommendations for clinical decision-making processes recognized by community members, accreditation bodies, the recommendations from medical specialty societies made available through campaigns such as Choosing Wisely, and different standards or accreditive bodies. OBJECTIVE:The main objective of this protocol is to assess the usefulness of the SEKMED platform used within a real working clinical practice, specifically the Centre intégré de santé et des services sociaux de l'Outaouais in Quebec, Canada. To achieve our main objective, 20 emergency physicians from the Hull and Gatineau Hospitals participate in the project as well as 20 patient care unit physicians from the Hull Hospital. In addition, 10 external students or residents studying family medicine from McGill University will also participate in our study. METHODS:The project is divided into 4 phases: (1) orientation; (2) data synthesis; (3) develop and validate the recommendations; and (4) implement, monitor, and update the recommendations. These phases will enable us to meet our 6 specific research objectives that aim to measure the integration of recommendations in clinical practices, the before and after improvements in practices, the value attributed by physicians to recommendations, the user's platform experience, the educational benefits according to medical students, and the organizational benefits according to stakeholders. The knowledge gained during each phase will be applied on an iterative and continuous basis to all other phases over a period of 2 years. RESULTS:This project was funded in April 2018 by the Fonds de soutien à l'innovation en santé et en services sociaux for 24 months. Ethics approval has been attained, the study began in June 2018, the data collection will be complete at the end of December 2019, and the data analysis will start in winter 2020. Both major city hospitals in the Outaouais region, Quebec, Canada, have agreed to participate in the project. CONCLUSIONS:If results show preliminary efficacy and usability of the system, a large-scale implementation will be conducted. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):PRR1-10.2196/11754.