Team dynamics, clinical work satisfaction, and patient care coordination between primary care providers: A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Team-based care is essential for delivering high-quality, comprehensive, and coordinated care. Despite considerable research about the effects of team-based care on patient outcomes, few studies have examined how team dynamics relate to provider outcomes. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to examine relationships among team dynamics, primary care provider (PCP) clinical work satisfaction, and patient care coordination between PCPs in 18 Harvard-affiliated primary care practices participating in Harvard's Academic Innovations Collaborative. METHODOLOGY: First, we administered a cross-sectional survey to all 548 PCPs (267 attending clinicians, 281 resident physicians) working at participating practices; 65% responded. We assessed the relationship of team dynamics with PCPs' clinical work satisfaction and perception of patient care coordination between PCPs, respectively, and the potential mediating effect of patient care coordination on the relationship between team dynamics and work satisfaction. In addition, we embedded a qualitative evaluation within the quantitative evaluation to achieve a convergent mixed methods design to help us better understand our findings and illuminate relationships among key variables. FINDINGS: Better team dynamics were positively associated with clinical work satisfaction and quality of patient care coordination between PCPs. Coordination partially mediated the relationship between team dynamics and satisfaction for attending clinicians, suggesting that higher satisfaction depends, in part, on better teamwork, yielding more coordinated patient care. We found no mediating effects for resident physicians. Qualitative results suggest that sources of satisfaction from positive team dynamics for PCPs may be most relevant to attending clinicians. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Improving primary care team dynamics could improve clinical work satisfaction among PCPs and patient care coordination between PCPs. In addition to improving outcomes that directly concern health care providers, efforts to improve aspects of team dynamics may also help resolve critical challenges in workforce planning in primary care.

Geographic cohorting by clinical care team: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Geographic cohorting refers to localization of inpatients to designated hospital areas (typically a unit or a set of beds) based on specified criteria. One such criterion that has been commonly discussed and studied since the early days of the hospitalist movement in the US is a patient's assigned clinical care team. Because implementing cohorting of this type requires substantial operational investment, it is important to understand the benefits and the tradeoffs associated with bringing patients into closer spatial proximity with their full team of providers and allowing clinicians to work within a defined clinical space. METHODS: We conducted a narrative review of the evidence around geographic cohorting of patients by clinical care team. We performed a comprehensive search of the PubMed, Embase, Cinahl and Scopus databases, identifying relevant English language articles. We used an inductive approach to developing thematic domains for categorization of article content. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: We reviewed eighteen articles published between 2008 and 2022, and identified four thematic outcomes domains: patient-centered outcomes, communication, efficiency, and satisfaction. The existing literature demonstrates associations with improved communication and staff satisfaction. The data regarding patient outcomes and overall work efficiency, on the other hand, are equivocal and, in general, limited by study methodology. CONCLUSIONS: Geographic cohorting of inpatients according to clinical care team offers some promise for improved workplace culture. More rigorously designed studies are needed, however, to understand its impact on patient outcomes, and there should be added attention paid to throughput metrics and tradeoffs that often limit its implementation.

The Relationship Between Scope of Practice Laws for Task Delegation and Nurse Turnover in Home Health.

OBJECTIVE: Nurse turnover can compromise the quality and continuity of home health care. Scope of practice laws, which determine the tasks nurses are allowed to perform and delegate, are an important element of autonomy and vary across states. In this study, we used human resource records from a multistate home health organization to examine the relationship between nurse turnover and whether nurses can delegate tasks to unlicensed aides. DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study sample included 1820 licensed practical nurses and 3309 registered nurses, who spanned 30 states. The study period was 2016 through 2018. METHODS: We used weighted least squares to study the relationship between nurse turnover for registered and licensed practical nurses and task delegation across state-years. We measured task delegation continuously (0-16 tasks) and as a binary variable (14 or more tasks, which indicated the state was in the top half of the distribution). RESULTS: Across state-years, the turnover rate was 30.8% for licensed practical nurses and 36.8% for registered nurses. Although there was no significant relationship between task delegation and turnover among registered nurses, we found that states in which nurses could delegate the most tasks had lower turnover rates among licensed practical nurses. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The ability to delegate tasks to unlicensed aides was correlated with lower turnover rates among licensed practical nurses, but not among registered nurses. This suggests that the ability to delegate tasks is more likely to affect the workload of licensed practical nurses. This also points to a potential and unexplored element of expanding the scope of practice for nurses: reduced turnover. Given the added work-related hazards associated with home health care, including working in isolation, a lack of social recognition, and inadequate reimbursement, states should consider whether changes in their policy environment could benefit nurses working in home health.

The Role of Schedule Volatility in Home Health Nursing Turnover.

Despite considerable research on nursing turnover, few studies have considered turnover among nurses working in home health care. Using novel administrative data from one of the largest home health care organizations in the United States, this study examined turnover among home health nurses, focusing on the role of schedule volatility. We estimated separation rates among full-time and part-time registered nurses and licensed practical nurses and used daily visit logs to estimate schedule volatility, which was defined as the coefficient of variation of the number of daily visits in the prior four weeks. Between 2016 and 2019, the average annual separation rate of home health nurses was over 30%, with most separations occurring voluntarily. Schedule volatility and turnover were positively associated for full-time nurses, but not for part-time nurses. These results suggest that reducing schedule volatility for full-time nurses could mitigate nursing turnover in home health care.

Telemedicine catches on: changes in the utilization of telemedicine services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the degree of telemedicine expansion overall and across patient subpopulations and diagnoses. We hypothesized that telemedicine visits would increase substantially due to the need for continuity of care despite the disruptive effects of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study of health insurance claims for telemedicine visits from January 1, 2018, through March 10, 2020 (prepandemic period), and March 11, 2020, through October 31, 2020 (pandemic period). METHODS: We analyzed claims from 1,589,777 telemedicine visits that were submitted to Independence Blue Cross (Independence) from telemedicine-only providers and providers who traditionally deliver care in person. The primary exposure was the combination of individual behavior changes, state stay-at-home orders, and the Independence expansion of billing policies for telemedicine. The comparison population consisted of telemedicine visits in the prepandemic period. RESULTS: Telemedicine increased rapidly from a mean (SD) of 773 (155) weekly visits in prepandemic 2020 to 45,632 (19,937) weekly visits in the pandemic period. During the pandemic period, a greater proportion of telemedicine users were older, had Medicare Advantage insurance plans, had existing chronic conditions, or resided in predominantly non-Hispanic Black or African American Census tracts compared with during the prepandemic period. A significant increase in telemedicine claims containing a mental health-related diagnosis was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic across a broad range of clinical conditions and demographics. Although levels declined later in 2020, telemedicine utilization remained markedly higher than 2019 and 2018 levels. Trends suggest that telemedicine will likely play a key role in postpandemic care delivery.

The impact of the non-essential business closure policy on Covid-19 infection rates.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many localities instituted non-essential business closure orders, keeping individuals categorized as essential workers at the frontlines while sending their non-essential counterparts home. We examine the extent to which being designated as an essential or non-essential worker impacts one's risk of being Covid-positive following the non-essential business closure order in Pennsylvania. We also assess the intrahousehold transmission risk experienced by their cohabiting family members and roommates. Using a difference-in-differences framework, we estimate that workers designated as essential have a 55% higher likelihood of being positive for Covid-19 than those classified as non-essential; in other words, non-essential workers experience a protective effect. While members of the health care and social assistance subsector contribute significantly to this overall effect, it is not completely driven by them. We also find evidence of intrahousehold transmission that differs in intensity by essential status. Dependents cohabiting with an essential worker have a 17% higher likelihood of being Covid-positive compared to those cohabiting with a non-essential worker. Roommates cohabiting with an essential worker experience a 38% increase in likelihood of being Covid-positive. Analysis of households with a Covid-positive member suggests that intrahousehold transmission is an important mechanism driving these effects.

Influence of bedspacing on outcomes of hospitalised medicine service patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Specialty wards cohort hospitalised patients to improve outcomes and lower costs. When demand exceeds capacity, patients overflow and are "bedspaced" to alternate wards. Some studies have demonstrated that bedspacing among medicine service patients is associated with adverse patient-centred outcomes, however, results have been inconsistent and have primarily been performed within national health systems. The objective of this study was to assess the association of bedspacing with patient-centred outcomes among United States patients admitted to general medicine services. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of internal medicine, family medicine and geriatric service patients who were bedspaced vs cohorted for the entirety of their hospital stay within three large, urban United States hospitals (quaternary referral centre, tertiary referral centre and community hospital, with different patient demographics and case-mixes) in 2014 and 2015. We performed quantile regression to determine differences in length of stay (LOS) between bedspaced vs cohorted patients and logistic regression for in-hospital mortality and discharge to home. RESULTS: Among 18 802 patients in 33 wards, 6119 (33%) patients were bedspaced. Bedspaced patients had significantly longer LOS compared with cohorted patients at the 25th (0.1 days, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.2, p=0.001), 50th (0.2 days, 95% CI: 0.1 to 0.3, p=0.003) and 75th (0.3 days, 95% CI: 0.2 to 0.5, p<0.001) percentiles; and no statistically significant differences in odds of mortality (OR=0.9, 95% CI: 0.6 to 1.3, p=0.5) or discharge to home (OR=0.9, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0, p=0.06) in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSION: Bedspacing is associated with adverse patient-centred outcomes. Future work is needed to confirm these findings, understand mechanisms contributing to adverse outcomes and identify factors that mitigate these adverse effects in order to provide high-value, patient-centred care to hospitalised patients.

Disruptions in preventive care: Mammograms during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the extent to which the provision of mammograms was impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and surrounding guidelines. DATA SOURCES: De-identified summary data derived from medical claims and eligibility files were provided by Independence Blue Cross for women receiving mammograms. STUDY DESIGN: We used a difference-in-differences approach to characterize the change in mammograms performed over time and a queueing formula to estimate the time to clear the queue of missed mammograms. DATA COLLECTION: We used data from the first 30 weeks of each year from 2018 to 2020. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Over the 20 weeks following March 11, 2020, the volume of screening mammograms and diagnostic mammograms fell by 58% and 38% of expected levels, on average. Lowest volumes were observed in week 15 (April 8 to 14), when screening and diagnostic mammograms fell by 99% and 74%, respectively. Volumes began to rebound in week 19 (May), with diagnostic mammograms reaching levels to similar to previous years' and screening mammograms remaining 14% below expectations. We estimate it will take a minimum of 22 weeks to clear the queue of missed mammograms in our study sample. CONCLUSIONS: The provision of mammograms has been significantly disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Development and validation of the primary care team dynamics survey.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a survey instrument designed to measure team dynamics in primary care. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: We studied 1,080 physician and nonphysician health care professionals working at 18 primary care practices participating in a learning collaborative aimed at improving team-based care. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a conceptual model and administered a cross-sectional survey addressing team dynamics, and we assessed reliability and discriminant validity of survey factors and the overall survey's goodness-of-fit using structural equation modeling. DATA COLLECTION: We administered the survey between September 2012 and March 2013. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall response rate was 68 percent (732 respondents). Results support a seven-factor model of team dynamics, suggesting that conditions for team effectiveness, shared understanding, and three supportive processes are associated with acting and feeling like a team and, in turn, perceived team effectiveness. This model demonstrated adequate fit (goodness-of-fit index: 0.91), scale reliability (Cronbach's alphas: 0.71-0.91), and discriminant validity (average factor correlations: 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to measure primary care team dynamics reliably using a 29-item survey. This survey may be used in ambulatory settings to study teamwork and explore the effect of efforts to improve team-based care. Future studies should demonstrate the importance of team dynamics for markers of team effectiveness (e.g., work satisfaction, care quality, clinical outcomes).