Variation in Hospital Neuraxial Labor Analgesia Rates in California.

BACKGROUND: Neuraxial analgesia provides effective pain relief during labor. However, it is unclear whether neuraxial analgesia prevalence differs across U.S. hospitals. The aim of this study was to assess hospital variation in neuraxial analgesia prevalence in California. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed birthing patients who underwent labor in 200 California hospitals from 2016 to 2020. The primary exposure was the delivery hospital. The outcomes were hospital neuraxial analgesia prevalence and between-hospital variability, before and after adjustment for patient and hospital factors. Median odds ratio and intraclass correlation coefficients quantified between-hospital variability. The median odds ratio estimated the odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia when moving between hospitals. The intraclass correlation coefficients quantified the proportion of the total variance in neuraxial analgesia use due to variation between hospitals. RESULTS: Among 1,510,750 patients who underwent labor, 1,040,483 (68.9%) received neuraxial analgesia. Both unadjusted and adjusted hospital prevalence exhibited a skewed distribution characterized by a long left tail. The unadjusted and adjusted prevalences were 5.4% and 6.0% at the 1st percentile, 21.0% and 21.2% at the 5th percentile, 70.6% and 70.7% at the 50th percentile, 75.8% and 76.6% at the 95th percentile, and 75.9% and 78.6% at the 99th percentile, respectively. The adjusted median odds ratio (2.3; 95% CI, 2.1 to 2.5) indicated substantially increased odds of a patient receiving neuraxial analgesia if they moved from a hospital with a lower odds of neuraxial analgesia to one with higher odds. The hospital explained only a moderate portion of the overall variability in neuraxial analgesia (intraclass correlation coefficient, 19.1%; 95% CI, 18.8 to 20.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A long left tail in the distribution and wide variation exist in the neuraxial analgesia prevalence across California hospitals that is not explained by patient and hospital factors. Addressing the low prevalence among hospitals in the left tail requires exploration of the interplay between patient preferences, staffing availability, and care providers' attitudes toward neuraxial analgesia.

Crisis leadership behaviors in healthcare: survey validation and influence on staff outcomes in primary care clinics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered an unprecedented transition from in-person to virtual delivery of primary health care services. Leaders were at the helm of the rapid changes required to make this happen, yet outcomes of leaders' behaviours were largely unexplored. This study (1) develops and validates the Crisis Leadership and Staff Outcomes (CLSO) Survey and (2) investigates the leadership behaviours exhibited during the transition to virtual care and their influence on select staff outcomes in primary care. METHODS: We tested the CLSO Survey amongst leaders and staff from four Community Health Centres in Ontario, Canada. The CLSO Survey measures a range of crisis leadership behaviors, such as showing empathy and promoting learning and psychological safety, as well as perceived staff outcomes in four areas: innovation, teamwork, feedback, and commitment to change. We conducted an exploratory factor analysis to investigate factor structure and construct validity. We report on the scale's internal consistency through Cronbach's alpha, and associations between leadership scales and staff outcomes through odds ratios. RESULTS: There were 78 staff and 21 middle and senior leaders who completed the survey. A 4-factor model emerged, comprised of the leadership behaviors of (1) "task-oriented leadership" and (2) "person-oriented leadership", and select staff outcomes of (3) "commitment to sustaining change" and (4) "performance self-evaluation". Scales exhibited strong construct and internal validity. Task- and person-oriented leadership behaviours positively related to the two staff outcomes. CONCLUSION: The CLSO Survey is a reliable measure of leadership behaviours and select staff outcomes. Our results suggest that crisis leadership is multifaceted and both person-oriented and task-oriented leadership behaviours are critical during a crisis to improve perceived staff performance and commitment to change.

More isn't always better: Technology in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Clinical care in modern intensive care units (ICUs) combines multidisciplinary expertise and a complex array of technologies. These technologies have clearly advanced the ability of clinicians to do more for patients, yet so much equipment also presents the possibility for cognitive overload. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate clinicians' experiences with and perceptions of technology in ICUs. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We analyzed qualitative data from 30 interviews with ICU clinicians and frontline managers within four ICUs. RESULTS: Our interviews identified three main challenges associated with technology in the ICU: (a) too many technologies and too much data; (b) inconsistent and inaccurate technologies; and (c) not enough integration among technologies, alignment with clinical workflows, and support for clinician identities. To address these challenges, interviewees highlighted mitigation strategies to address both social and technical systems and to achieve joint optimization. CONCLUSION: When new technologies are added to the ICU, they have potential both to improve and to disrupt patient care. To successfully implement technologies in the ICU, clinicians' perspectives are crucial. Understanding clinicians' perspectives can help limit the disruptive effects of new technologies, so clinicians can focus their time and attention on providing care to patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As technology and data continue to play an increasingly important role in ICU care, everyone involved in the design, development, approval, implementation, and use of technology should work together to apply a sociotechnical systems approach to reduce possible negative effects on clinical care for critically ill patients.

Assessing health care leadership and management for resilience and performance during crisis: The HERO-36.

BACKGROUND: Whereas organizational literature has provided much insight into the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of organizational leadership and management during emergencies, measures to operationalize related effective practices during crises remain sparse. PURPOSE: To address this need, we developed the Healthcare Emergency Response Optimization survey, which set out to examine the leadership and management practices in health care organizations that support resilience and performance during crisis. METHODOLOGY: We administered an online survey in April to May 2022 to health care administrators and frontline staff intimately involved in their hospital's emergency response during the COVID-19 pandemic, which included a sample of 379 respondents across nine rural and urban hospitals (response rate: 44.4%). We used confirmatory factor analysis and quantile regressions to examine the results. RESULTS: Applying confirmatory factor analysis, we retained 36 items in our survey that comprised eight measures for formal and informal practices to assess crisis leadership and management. To test effectiveness of the specified practices, we regressed self-reported resilience and performance measures on the formality and informality scores. Findings show that informal practices mattered most for resilience, whereas formal practices mattered most for performance. We also identified specific practices (anticipation, transactional and relational interactions, and ad hoc collaborations) for resilience and performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These validated measures of organizational practices assess emergency response during crisis, with an emphasis on the actions and decisions of leadership as well as the management of organizational structures and processes. Organizations using these measures may subsequently modify preparedness and planning approaches to better manage future crises.

Ideas from the Frontline: Improvement Opportunities in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Engaging frontline clinicians and staff in quality improvement is a promising bottom-up approach to transforming primary care practices. This may be especially true in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and similar safety-net settings where large-scale, top-down transformation efforts are often associated with declining worker morale and increasing burnout. Innovation contests, which decentralize problem-solving, can be used to involve frontline workers in idea generation and selection. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the ideas that frontline clinicians and staff suggested via organizational innovation contests in a national sample of 54 FQHCs. INTERVENTIONS: Innovation contests solicited ideas for improving care from all frontline workers-regardless of professional expertise, job title, and organizational tenure and excluding those in senior management-and offered opportunities to vote on ideas. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1,417 frontline workers across all participating FQHCs generated 2,271 improvement opportunities. APPROACHES: We performed a content analysis and organized the ideas into codes (e.g., standardization, workplace perks, new service, staff relationships, community development) and categories (e.g., operations, employees, patients). KEY RESULTS: Ideas from frontline workers in participating FQHCs called attention to standardization (n = 386, 17%), staffing (n = 244, 11%), patient experience (n = 223, 10%), staff training (n = 145, 6%), workplace perks (n = 142, 6%), compensation (n = 101, 5%), new service (n = 92, 4%), management-staff relationships (n = 82, 4%), and others. Voting results suggested that staffing resources, standardization, and patient communication were key issues among workers. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation contests generated numerous ideas for improvement from the frontline. It is likely that the issues described in this study have become even more salient today, as the COVID-19 pandemic has had devastating impacts on work environments and health/social needs of patients living in low-resourced communities. Continued work is needed to promote learning and information exchange about opportunities to improve and transform practices between policymakers, managers, and providers and staff at the frontlines.

Factors affecting collaboration between clinical and community service organizations.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between clinical and community-based social service organizations is increasingly seen as vital for preventing and managing chronic diseases but has been challenging to establish and sustain. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify organizational barriers and facilitators for clinic-community collaboration. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We employed multiple methods to study a national sample of nonprofit community-based organizations that each collaborated with local clinical organizations for diabetes prevention in the United States. We used qualitative data collected longitudinally through 65 semistructured interviews from 2016 to 2017 at seven of these organizations and their clinical collaborators to understand their relationships. We employed survey data ( N = 247 with 73% response rate) to measure and explore relationships among qualitatively identified themes and collaboration performance. RESULTS: We documented three levels of organizational challenges to community-clinic collaboration. Interorganizational challenges pertain to facing only weakly aligned interests across organizations. Interpersonal challenges pertain to misperceptions and miscommunications that occur as frontline employees from differing organizations seek to work together. Task-related challenges pertain to the inadequacy of current processes to effectively link services across clinical and community settings. We found that bridging leadership , provisional teamwork, and learning processes helped to overcome these challenges by enabling iterative progress. Follow-up national survey results indicated that these facilitators were significantly associated with collaboration performance. CONCLUSIONS: Because community-clinic collaboration presents substantial interorganizational, interpersonal, and task-related challenges, financial incentives alone are likely insufficient for success. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Resources that help develop capacity to work across community and clinical settings may be vital and warrant dedicated funding.

The dynamics of integration and integrated care: An exploratory study of physician organizations.

BACKGROUND: Substantial variation exists in how well health care is integrated, even across similarly structured organizations, yet research about what physician organizations (POs) do that enables or inhibits integrated care is limited. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the dynamics that enable POs to integrate care. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We ranked a stratified sample of POs according to patient perceptions of integrated care, as measured in a survey. We interviewed professionals, patients, and family members in 10 higher and 3 lower ranked POs about the process of caring for patients with complex conditions. We derived integration-related themes from the interview data and quantified their prevalence. Using a quasi-statistical approach, we explored relationships among themes and their associations with patient perceptions of integrated care. RESULTS: From 6,104 coded references, we derived a set of themes representing integration perspectives, integration engagement mechanisms, and integration failures. POs experienced frequent integration failures. Higher ranked POs experienced these failures less often because of a combination of functional, interpersonal, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms, which appear to complement one another. Integration perspectives, including both people-oriented and systems-oriented mindsets, appear to play a role in generating these integration dynamics. CONCLUSION: Delivering integrated care depends on a PO's ability to limit integration failures, keeping provider attention focused on patients. Building on the attention-based view, we present a framework suggesting that this ability is a function of both integration perspectives and integration engagement mechanisms. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: POs interested in delivering more integrated care should employ a variety of complementary integration engagement mechanisms and facilitate these efforts by nurturing both people-oriented and system-oriented mindsets among PO decision-makers.

A Multi-site Case Study of Care Coordination Between Primary Care and Specialty Care.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is critical for patients with multiple chronic conditions, but fragmentation of care persists. Providers' perspectives of facilitators and barriers to coordination are needed to improve care. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand providers' perspectives on care coordination for patients having multiple chronic diseases served by multiple providers. RESEARCH DESIGN: Based upon our earlier survey of patients with multiple chronic conditions, we selected 8 medical centers having high and low coordination. We interviewed providers to identify facilitators and barriers to coordination and compare them between patient-rated high sites and low sites and between primary care (PC)-mental health (MH) and PC-medical/surgical specialty care. SUBJECTS: Physicians, nurses and other clinicians in PC, cardiology, and MH (N=102) in 8 Veterans Affairs medical centers. RESULTS: We identified warm handoffs, professional relationships, and physical proximity as facilitators, and service agreements, reporting relationships and staffing as barriers. PC-MH coordination was reported as better than PC-medical/surgical specialty coordination. Facilitators were more prevalent and barriers less prevalent in sites rated high by patients than sites rated low, and between PC-MH than between PC-specialty care. DISCUSSION: We noted that professional relationships were highly related to coordination and both affected other facilitators and barriers and were affected by them. We suggested actions to improve relationships directly, and to address other facilitators and barriers that affect relationships and coordination. Among these is the use of the Primary Care Mental Health Integration model.

Promising Strategies to Support COVID-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel: Qualitative Insights from the VHA National Implementation.

BACKGROUND: In August 2021, up to 30% of Americans were uncertain about taking the COVID-19 vaccine, including some healthcare personnel (HCP). OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to identify barriers and facilitators of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) HCP vaccination program. DESIGN: We conducted key informant interviews with employee occupational health (EOH) providers, using snowball recruitment. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included 43 VHA EOH providers representing 29 of VHA's regionally diverse healthcare systems. APPROACH: Thematic analysis elucidated 5 key themes and specific strategies recommended by EOH. KEY RESULTS: Implementation themes reflected logistics of distribution (supply), addressing any vaccine concerns or hesitancy (demand), and learning health system strategies/approaches for shared learnings. Specifically, themes included the following: (1) use interdisciplinary task forces to leverage diverse skillsets for vaccine implementation; (2) invest in processes and align resources with priorities, including creating detailed processes, addressing time trade-offs for personnel involved in vaccine clinics by suspending everything non-essential, designating process/authority to shift personnel where needed, and proactively involving leaders to support resource allocation/alignment; (3) expect and accommodate vaccine buy-in occurring over time: prepare for some HCP's slow buy-in, align buy-in facilitation with identities and motivation, and encourage word-of-mouth and hyper-local testimonials; (4) overcome misinformation with trustworthy communication: tailor communication to individuals and address COVID vaccines "in every encounter," leverage proactive institutional messaging to reinforce information, and invite bi-directional conversations about any vaccine concerns. A final overarching theme focused on learning health system needs and structures: (5) use existing and newly developed communication channels to foster shared learning across teams and sites. CONCLUSIONS: Expecting deliberation allows systems to prepare for complex distribution logistics (supply) and make room for conversations that are trustworthy, bi-directional, and identity aligned (demand). Ideally, organizations provide time for conversations that address individual concerns, foster bi-directional shared decision-making, respect HCP beliefs and identities, and emphasize shared identities as healthcare providers.

Association Between Mental Health Conditions and Outpatient Care Fragmentation: a National Study of Older High-Risk Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare fragmentation may lead to adverse consequences and may be amplified among older, sicker patients with mental health (MH) conditions. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether older Veterans with MH conditions have more fragmented outpatient non-MH care, compared with older Veterans with no MH conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using FY2014 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) administrative data linked to Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: 125,481 VHA patients ≥ 65 years old who were continuously enrolled in Medicare Fee-for-Service Parts A and B and were at high risk for hospitalization. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The main outcome was non-MH care fragmentation as measured by (1) non-MH provider count and (2) Usual Provider of Care (UPC), the proportion of care with the most frequently seen non-MH provider. We tested the association between no vs. any MH conditions and outcomes using Poisson regression and fractional regression with logit link, respectively. We also compared Veterans with no MH condition with each MH condition and combinations of MH conditions, adjusting for sociodemographics, comorbidities, and drive-time to VHA specialty care. KEY RESULTS: In total, 47.3% had at least one MH condition. Compared to those without MH conditions, Veterans with MH conditions had less fragmented care, with fewer non-MH providers (IRR = 0.96; 95% CI: 0.96-0.96) and more concentrated care with their usual provider (OR = 1.08 for a higher UPC; 95% CI: 1.07, 1.09) in adjusted models. Secondary analyses showed that those with individual MH conditions (e.g., depression) had fewer non-MH providers (IRR range: 0.86-0.98) and more concentrated care (OR range: 1.04-1.20). A similar pattern was observed when examining combinations of MH conditions (IRR range: 0.80-0.90; OR range: 1.16-1.30). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to expectations, having a MH condition was associated with less fragmented non-MH care among older, high-risk Veterans. Further research will determine if this is due to different needs, underuse, or appropriate use of healthcare.

Teaming in Interdisciplinary Chronic Pain Management Interventions in Primary Care: a Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Current pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.

Exploring system features of primary care practices that promote better providers' clinical work satisfaction: A qualitative comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Health care delivery system features can have a profound effect on how frontline physicians and other clinical personnel in primary care practices (primary care providers [PCPs]) view the quality and safety of what they deliver and, ultimately, their clinical work satisfaction. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the combinations of system features (i.e., team dynamics, provider-perceived safety culture, and patient care coordination between PCPs) that are most conducive to positively enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction. APPROACH: Nineteen Harvard-affiliated primary care practice sites participated in the Academic Innovations Collaborative 2012-2016, which aimed to establish team-based care and improve patient safety. An All-Staff Survey was administered to 854 PCPs in 2015. The survey measured provider experience of team dynamics, provider-perceived safety culture, patient care coordination between PCPs, and providers' clinical work satisfaction. We performed a qualitative comparative analysis to identify "recipes," that is, combinations of conditions necessary and sufficient for enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction. RESULTS: Strong provider-perceived safety culture and effective team dynamics constitute sufficient conditions that, when present in practices, could best support PCPs to achieve greater clinical work satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the importance of creating and sustaining a strong safety culture and of establishing and implementing highly functioning teams in primary care practices for enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Conducting the qualitative comparative analysis provides a new perspective for informing primary care and encouraging primary care practices to pursue strategic priorities for enhancing PCPs' clinical work satisfaction and providing safe, high-quality care.

Enhancing the value to users of machine learning-based clinical decision support tools: A framework for iterative, collaborative development and implementation.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations are integrating a variety of machine learning (ML)-based clinical decision support (CDS) tools into their operations, but practitioners lack clear guidance regarding how to implement these tools so that they assist end users in their work. PURPOSE: We designed this study to identify how health care organizations can facilitate collaborative development of ML-based CDS tools to enhance their value for health care delivery in real-world settings. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We utilized qualitative methods, including 37 interviews in a large, multispecialty health system that developed and implemented two operational ML-based CDS tools in two of its hospital sites. We performed thematic analyses to inform presentation of an explanatory framework and recommendations. RESULTS: We found that ML-based CDS tool development and implementation into clinical workflows proceeded in four phases: iterative solution coidentification, iterative coengagement, iterative coapplication, and iterative corefinement. Each phase is characterized by a collaborative back-and-forth process between the technology's developers and users, through which both users' activities and the technology itself are transformed. CONCLUSION: Health care organizations that anticipate iterative collaboration to be an integral aspect of their ML-based CDS tools' development and implementation process may have more success in deploying ML-based CDS tools that assist end users in their work than organizations that expect a traditional technology innovation process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Managers developing and implementing ML-based CDS tools should frame the work as a collaborative learning opportunity for both users and the technology itself and should solicit constructive feedback from users on potential changes to the technology, in addition to potential changes to user workflows, in an ongoing, iterative manner.

Evaluating a patient safety learning laboratory to create an interdisciplinary ecosystem for health care innovation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the complexity, challenges, and slow pace of innovation, health care organizations are adopting interdisciplinary team approaches. Systems engineering, which is oriented to creating new, scalable processes that perform with higher reliability and lower costs, holds promise for driving innovation in the face of challenges to team performance. A patient safety learning laboratory (lab) can be an essential aspect of fostering interdisciplinary team innovation across multiple projects and organizations by creating an ecosystem focused on deploying systems engineering methods to accomplish process redesign. PURPOSE: We sought to identify the role and activities of a learning ecosystem that support interdisciplinary team innovation through evaluation of a patient safety learning lab. METHODS: Our study included three participating learning lab project teams. We applied a mixed-methods approach using a convergent design that combined data from qualitative interviews of team members conducted as teams neared the completion of their redesign projects, as well as evaluation questionnaires administered throughout the 4-year learning lab. RESULTS: Our results build on learning theories by showing that successful learning ecosystems continually create alignment between interdisciplinary teams' activities, organizational context, and innovation project objectives. The study identified four types of alignment, interpersonal/interprofessional, informational, structural, and processual, and supporting activities for alignment to occur. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary learning ecosystems have the potential to foster health care improvement and innovation through alignment of team activities, project goals, and organizational contexts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study applies to interdisciplinary teams tackling multilevel system challenges in their health care organization and suggests that the work of such teams benefits from the four types of alignment. Alignment on all four dimensions may yield best results.

Former Inpatient Psychiatric Patients' Past Experiences With Traditional Frontline Staff and Their Thoughts on the Benefits of Peers as Part of Frontline Staff.

Little is known about how integrating peers into frontline staff might improve the quality of inpatient psychiatric care. In the current study, we interviewed 18 former adult patients of inpatient psychiatric facilities using semi-structured interviews. We first asked about positive and negative past experiences with traditional staff. We then asked participants to share their opinions on the potential benefits of peers as part of frontline staff. We identified themes through a joint inductive and deductive approach. Participants reported past positive experiences with traditional staff as being (a) personable and caring, (b) validating feelings and experiences, (c) de-escalating, and (d) providing agency. Past negative experiences included (a) not sharing information, (b) being inattentive, (c) not providing agency, (d) being dehumanizing/disrespectful, (e) incompetency, (f) escalating situations, and (g) being apathetic. Participants believed that peers as part of frontline staff could champion emotional needs in humanizing and nonjudgmental ways, help navigate the system, and disrupt power imbalances between staff and patients. Further research is needed to understand financial, organizational, and cultural barriers to integrating peers into frontline staff. [Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services, 60(3), 15-22.].

Higher Medicare Expenditures Are Associated With Better Integrated Care as Perceived by Patients.

BACKGROUND: Integrated care that is continuous, coordinated and patient-centered is vital for Medicare beneficiaries, but its relationship to health care expenditures remains unclear. RESEARCH OBJECTIVE: This study explores-for the first time-the relationship between integrated care, as measured from the patient's perspective, and health care expenditures. METHODS: Subjects include a sample of continuously eligible fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries (n=8807) in 2015. Analyses draw on 7 previously validated measures of patient-perceived integrated care from the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. These data are combined with 2015 administrative utilization data that measure health care expenditures. Relationships between patient-perceived integrated care and costs are assessed using generalized linear models with comprehensive control measures. RESULTS: Patients who perceive more integrated care have higher expenditures for many, but not all, cost categories examined. Aspects of integrated care pertaining to primary provider and specialist care are associated with higher costs in several areas (particularly inpatient costs associated with specialist knowledge of the patient). Office staff members' knowledge of the patient's medical history is associated with lower home health costs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who experience their care as more integrated may have higher expenditures on average. Thoughtful policy choices, further research, and innovations that enable patients to perceive integrated care at lower or neutral cost are needed.

Patient Experiences of Integrated Care in Medicare Accountable Care Organizations and Medicare Advantage Versus Traditional Fee-for-Service.

BACKGROUND: Health insurance design can influence the extent to which clinical care is well-coordinated. Through alternative payment models, Medicare Advantage (MA) and Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) have the potential to improve integration relative to traditional fee-for-service (FFS) Medicare. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient experiences of integrated care within Medicare and identify whether MA or ACO beneficiaries perceive greater integration than FFS beneficiaries. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional analysis of the 2015 Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. SUBJECTS: Nationally representative sample of 11,978 Medicare beneficiaries. MEASURES: Main outcomes included 8 previously derived domains of patient-perceived integrated care (PPIC), measured on a scale of 1-4. RESULTS: The final sample was 55% female with a mean (SD) age of 71.1 (11.3). In unadjusted analyses, we observed considerable variation across PPIC domains in the full sample, but little variation across subsamples defined by coverage type within a given PPIC domain. In linear models adjusting for a rich set of patient characteristics, we observe no significant benefits of ACOs nor MA relative to FFS, a finding which is robust to alternative specifications and adjustment for multiple comparisons. We similarly observed no benefits in subgroup analyses restricted to states with relatively high market penetration of ACOs or MA. CONCLUSIONS: Despite characteristics of ACOs and MA that theoretically promote integrated care, we find that PPIC is largely similar across coverage types in Medicare.

Optimizing patient partnership in primary care improvement: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The need to expand and better engage patients in primary care improvement persists. PURPOSE: Recognizing a continuum of forms of engagement, this study focused on identifying lessons for optimizing patient partnerships, wherein engagement is characterized by shared decision-making and practice improvement codesign. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-three semistructured interviews with providers and patients involved in improvement efforts in seven U.S. primary care practices in the Academic Innovations Collaborative (AIC). The AIC aimed to implement primary care improvement, emphasizing patient engagement in the process. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Sites varied in their achievement of patient partnerships, encountering material, technical, and sociocultural obstacles. Time was a challenge for all sites, as was engaging a diversity of patients. Technical training on improvement processes and shared learning "on the job" were important. External, organizational, and individual-level resources helped overcome sociocultural challenges: The AIC drove provider buy-in, a team-based improvement approach helped shift relationships from providers and recipients toward teammates, and individual qualities and behaviors that flattened hierarchies and strengthened interpersonal relationships further enhanced "teamness." A key factor influencing progress toward transformative partnerships was a strong shared learning journey, characterized by frequent interactions, proximity to improvement decision-making, and learning together from the "lived experience" of practice improvement. Teams came to value not only patients' knowledge but also changes wrought by working collaboratively over time. CONCLUSION: Establishing practice improvement partnerships remains challenging, but partnering with patients on improvement journeys offers distinctive gains for high-quality patient-centered care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Engaging diverse patient partners requires significant disruption to organizational norms and routines, and the trend toward team-based primary care offers a fertile context for patient partnerships. Material, technical, and sociocultural resources should be evaluated not only for whether they overcome specific challenges but also for how they enhance the shared learning journey.

A Mixed Methods Study of the Association of Non-Veterans Affairs Care With Veterans' and Clinicians' Experiences of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Poor coordination between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA care may negatively impact health care quality. Recent legislation is intended to increase Veterans' access to care, in part through increased use of non-VA care. However, a possible consequence may be diminished patient experiences of coordination. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine VA patients' and clinicians' experiences of coordination across VA and non-VA settings. DESIGN: Observational mixed methods using patient surveys and clinician interviews. Sampled patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus and either cardiovascular or mental health comorbidities. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: Patient perspectives on coordination were elicited between April and September 2016 through a national survey supplemented with VA administrative records (N=5372). Coordination was measured with the 8-dimension Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care survey. Receipt of non-VA care was measured through patient self-report. Clinician perspectives were elicited through individual interviews (N=100) between May and October 2017. RESULTS: Veterans who received both VA and non-VA care reported significantly worse care coordination experiences than Veterans who only receive care in VA. Clinicians report limited information exchange capabilities, which, combined with bureaucratic and opaque procedures, adversely impact clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: VA is working through a shift in how Veterans receive health care by increasing access to care from non-VA providers. Study findings suggest that VA should prioritize coordination of care in addition to access. This could include requiring monitoring of patient-experienced care coordination, surveys of referring and consulting clinicians, and pilot testing and evaluation of interventions to improve coordination.

World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist Modification: Do Changes Emphasize Communication and Teamwork?

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization's (WHO) surgical safety checklist is meant to be customized to facilitate local implementation, encourage full-team participation, and promote a culture of safety. Although it has been globally adopted, little is known about the extent of checklist modification and the type of changes made. METHODS: Nonsubspecialty surgical checklists were obtained through online search and targeted hospital requests. A detailed coding scheme was created to capture modifications to checklist content and formatting. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Of 155 checklists analyzed, all were modified. Compared with the WHO checklist, those in our sample contained more lines of text (median: 63 [interquartile range: 50-73] versus 56) and items (36 [interquartile range: 30-43] versus 28). A median of 13 new items were added. Items most frequently added included implants/special equipment (added by 84%), deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis/anticoagulation (added by 75%), and positioning (added by 63%). Checklists removed a median of 5 WHO items. The most frequently removed item was the pulse oximeter check (removed in 75%), followed by 4 items (each removed in 39%-48%) that comprise part of the WHO Checklist's "Anticipated Critical Events" section, which is intended for exchanging critical information. The surgeon was not explicitly mentioned in the checklist in 12%; the anesthesiologist/certified registered nurse anesthetist in 14%, the circulator in 10%, and the surgical tech/scrub in 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Checklists are highly modified but often enlarged with items that may not prompt discussion or teamwork. Of concern is the frequent removal of items from the WHO's "Anticipated Critical Events" section.