Care Coordination Models and Tools-Systematic Review and Key Informant Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination (CC) interventions involve systematic strategies to address fragmentation and enhance continuity of care. However, it remains unclear whether CC can sufficiently address patient needs and improve outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA Evidence Synthesis Program, from inception to September 2019. Two individuals reviewed eligibility and rated quality using modified AMSTAR 2. Eligible systematic reviews (SR) examined diverse CC interventions for community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions and/or at higher risk for acute care. From eligible SR and relevant included primary studies, we abstracted the following: study and intervention characteristics; target population(s); effects on hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and/or patient experience; setting characteristics; and tools and approaches used. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals who implemented CC interventions. RESULTS: Of 2324 unique citations, 16 SR were eligible; 14 examined case management or transitional care interventions; and 2 evaluated intensive primary care models. Two SR highlighted selection for specific risk factors as important for effectiveness; one of these also indicated high intensity (e.g., more patient contacts) and/or multidisciplinary plans were key. Most SR found inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations or ED visits; few reported on patient experience. Effective interventions were implemented in multiple settings, including rural community hospitals, academic medical centers (in urban settings), and public hospitals serving largely poor, uninsured populations. Primary studies reported variable approaches to improve patient-provider communication, including health coaching and role-playing. SR, primary studies, and key informant interviews did not identify tools for measuring patient trust or care team integration. Sustainability of CC interventions varied and some were adapted over time. DISCUSSION: CC interventions have inconsistent effects on reducing hospitalizations and ED visits. Future work should address how they should be adapted to different healthcare settings and which tools or approaches are most helpful for implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42020156359.

Life-space mobility and healthcare costs and utilization in older men.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of life-space score with subsequent healthcare costs and utilization. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study (Osteoporotic Fracture in Men [MrOS]). SETTING: Six U.S. sites. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1555 community-dwelling men (mean age 79.3 years; 91.5% white, non-Hispanic) participating in the MrOS Year 7 (Y7) examination linked with their Medicare claims data. MEASUREMENTS: Life-space during the past month was assessed as 0 (daily restriction to one's bedroom) to 120 (daily trips outside one's town without assistance) and categorized (0-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-120). Total annualized direct healthcare costs and utilization were ascertained during 36 months after the Y7 examination. RESULTS: Mean total annualized costs (2020 U.S. dollars) steadily increased across category of life-space score, from $7954 (standard deviation [SD] 16,576) among men with life-space scores of 101-120 to $26,430 (SD 28,433) among men with life-space scores of 0-40 (p < 0.001). After adjustment for demographics, men with a life-space score of 0-40 versus men with a life-space score of 101-120 had greater mean total costs (cost ratio [CR] = 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.84-3.45) and greater risk of subsequent hospitalization (odds ratio [OR] 4.72, 95% CI 2.61-8.53) and skilled nursing facility (SNF) stay (OR 7.32, 95% CI 3.65-14.66). Life-space score was no longer significantly associated with total healthcare costs (CR for 0-40 vs 101-120 1.29; 95% CI 0.91-1.84) and hospitalization (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.89-3.51) after simultaneous consideration of demographics, medical factors, self-reported health and function, and the frailty phenotype; the association of life-space with SNF stay remained significant (OR 2.86, 95% CI 1.26-6.49). CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the importance of function and mobility in predicting future healthcare costs and suggest the simple and convenient life-space score may in part capture risks from major geriatric domains and improve identification of older, community-dwelling men likely to require costly care.

Evidence Review-Social Determinants of Health for Veterans.

BACKGROUND: Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is committed to providing high-quality care and addressing health disparities for vulnerable Veterans. To meet these goals, VA policymakers need guidance on how to address social determinants in operations planning and day-to-day clinical care for Veterans. METHOD: MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts were searched from inception to January 2017. Additional articles were suggested by peer reviewers and/or found through search of work associated with US and VA cohorts. Eligible articles compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and/or Veterans engaged with those not engaged in VA healthcare. Our evidence maps summarized study characteristics, social determinant(s) addressed, and whether health behaviors, health services utilization, and/or health outcomes were examined. Qualitative syntheses and quality assessment were performed for articles on rurality, trauma exposure, and sexual orientation. RESULTS: We screened 7242 citations and found 131 eligible articles-99 compared Veterans vs non-Veterans, and 40 included engaged vs non-engaged Veterans. Most articles were cross-sectional and addressed socioeconomic factors (e.g., education and income). Fewer articles addressed rurality (N = 20), trauma exposure (N = 17), or sexual orientation (N = 2); none examined gender identity. We found no differences in rural residence between Veterans and non-Veterans, nor between engaged and non-engaged Veterans (moderate strength evidence). There was insufficient evidence for role of rurality in health behaviors, health services utilization, or health outcomes. Trauma exposures, including from events preceding military service, were more prevalent for Veterans vs non-Veterans and for engaged vs non-engaged Veterans (low-strength evidence); exposures were associated with smoking (low-strength evidence). DISCUSSION: Little published literature exists on some emerging social determinants. We found no differences in rural residence between our groups of interest, but trauma exposure was higher in Veterans (vs non-Veterans) and engaged (vs non-engaged). We recommend consistent measures for social determinants, clear conceptual frameworks, and analytic strategies that account for the complex relationships between social determinants and health.