Care coordination across healthcare systems: development of a research agenda, implications for practice, and recommendations for policy based on a modified Delphi panel.

OBJECTIVE: For large, integrated healthcare delivery systems, coordinating patient care across delivery systems with providers external to the system presents challenges. We explored the domains and requirements for care coordination by professionals across healthcare systems and developed an agenda for research, practice and policy. DESIGN: The modified Delphi approach convened a 2-day stakeholder panel with moderated virtual discussions, preceded and followed by online surveys. SETTING: The work addresses care coordination across healthcare systems. We introduced common care scenarios and differentiated recommendations for a large (main) healthcare organisation and external healthcare professionals that contribute additional care. PARTICIPANTS: The panel composition included health service providers, decision makers, patients and care community, and researchers. Discussions were informed by a rapid review of tested approaches to fostering collaboration, facilitating care coordination and improving communication across healthcare systems. OUTCOME MEASURES: The study planned to formulate a research agenda, implications for practice and recommendations for policy. RESULTS: For research recommendations, we found consensus for developing measures of shared care, exploring healthcare professionals' needs in different care scenarios and evaluating patient experiences. Agreed practice recommendations included educating external professionals about issues specific to the patients in the main healthcare system, educating professionals within the main healthcare system about the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties, and helping patients better understand the pros and cons of within-system and out-of-system care. Policy recommendations included supporting time for professionals with high overlap in patients to engage regularly and sustaining support for care coordination for high-need patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations from the stakeholder panel created an agenda to foster further research, practice and policy innovations in cross-system care coordination.

Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Interventions to Address Food Insecurity Among Adults in Canada and the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Inadequate access to food is a risk factor for poor health and the effectiveness of federal programs targeting food insecurity, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are well-documented. The associations between other types of interventions to provide adequate food access and food insecurity status, health outcomes, and health care utilization, however, are unclear. Objective: To review evidence on the association between food insecurity interventions and food insecurity status, clinically-relevant health outcomes, and health care utilization among adults, excluding SNAP. Data Sources: A systematic search for English-language literature was performed in PubMed Central and Cochrane Trials databases (inception to January 23, 2020), the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network database (December 10, 2019); and the gray literature using Google (February 1, 2021). Study Selection: Studies of any design that assessed the association between food insecurity interventions for adult participants and food insecurity status, health outcomes, and health care utilization were screened for inclusion. Studies of interventions that described addressing participants' food needs or reporting food insecurity as an outcome were included. Interventions were categorized as home-delivered food, food offered at a secondary site, monetary assistance in the form of subsidies or income supplements, food desert interventions, and miscellaneous. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions) tool, and a modified version of the National Institutes of Health's Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies With No Control. The certainty of evidence was based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria and supplemented with mechanistic and parallel evidence. For outcomes within intervention categories with at least 3 studies, random effects meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Food insecurity (measured through surveys; eg, the 2-item Hunger Vital Sign), health outcomes (eg, hemoglobin A1c), and health care utilization (eg, hospitalizations, costs). Results: A total of 39 studies comprising 170 605 participants were included (8 randomized clinical trials and 31 observational studies). Of these, 14 studies provided high-certainty evidence of an association between offering food and reduced food insecurity (pooled random effects; adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67). Ten studies provided moderate-certainty evidence of an association between offering monetary assistance and reduced food insecurity (pooled random effects; adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84). There were fewer studies of the associations between interventions and health outcomes or health care utilization, and the evidence in these areas was of low or very low certainty that any food insecurity interventions were associated with changes in either. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review with meta-analysis found that providing food and monetary assistance was associated with improved food insecurity measures; however, whether it translated to better health outcomes or reduced health care utilization was unclear.

Mindfulness meditation for workplace wellness: An evidence map.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness interventions aim to foster greater attention and awareness of present moment experiences. Uptake of mindfulness programs in the workplace has grown as organizations look to support employee health, wellbeing, and performance. OBJECTIVE: In support of evidence-based decision making in workplace contexts, we created an evidence map summarizing physical and mental health, cognitive, affective, and interpersonal outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mindfulness interventions. METHODS: We searched nine electronic databases to July 2017, dually-screened all reviews, and consulted topic experts to identify systematic reviews on mindfulness interventions. The distribution of evidence is presented as an evidence map in a bubble plot. RESULTS: In total, 175 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Reviews included a variety of mindfulness-based interventions. The largest review included 109 randomized controlled trials. The majority of these addressed general health, psychological conditions, chronic illness, pain, and substance use. Twenty-six systematic reviews assessed studies conducted in workplace settings and with healthcare professionals, educators, and caregivers. The evidence map shows the prevalence of research by the primary area of focus. An outline of promising applications of mindfulness interventions is included. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence map provides an overview of existing mindfulness research. It shows the body of available evidence to inform policy and organizational decision-making supporting employee wellbeing in work contexts.

Synthesizing the Strength of the Evidence of Complementary and Integrative Health Therapies for Pain.

OBJECTIVE: Pain and opioid use are highly prevalent, leading for calls to include nonpharmacological options in pain management, including complementary and integrative health (CIH) therapies. More than 2,000 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and many systematic reviews have been conducted on CIH therapies, making it difficult to easily understand what type of CIH therapy might be effective for what type of pain. Here we synthesize the strength of the evidence for four types of CIH therapies on pain: acupuncture, therapeutic massage, mindfulness techniques, and tai chi. DESIGN: We conducted searches of English-language systematic reviews and RCTs in 11 electronic databases and previously published reviews for each type of CIH. To synthesize that large body of literature, we then created an "evidence map," or a visual display, of the literature size and broad estimates of effectiveness for pain. RESULTS: Many systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria: acupuncture (86), massage (38), mindfulness techniques (11), and tai chi (21). The evidence for acupuncture was strongest, and largest for headache and chronic pain. Mindfulness, massage, and tai chi have statistically significant positive effects on some types of pain. However, firm conclusions cannot be drawn for many types of pain due to methodological limitations or lack of RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient strength of evidence for acupuncture for various types of pain. Individual studies indicate that tai chi, mindfulness, and massage may be promising for multiple types of chronic pain. Additional sufficiently powered RCTs are warranted to indicate tai chi, mindfulness, and massage for other types of pain.

Massage for Pain: An Evidence Map.

Objectives: Massage therapy has been proposed for painful conditions, but it can be difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence, as various painful conditions may respond differently to massage. The authors conducted an evidence mapping process and generated an "evidence map" to visually depict the distribution of evidence available for massage and various pain indications to identify gaps in evidence and to inform future research priorities. Design: The authors searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane for systematic reviews reporting pain outcomes for massage therapy. The authors assessed the quality of each review using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. The authors used a bubble plot to depict the number of included articles, pain indication, effect of massage for pain, and strength of findings for each included systematic review. Results: The authors identified 49 systematic reviews, of which 32 were considered high quality. Types of pain frequently included in systematic reviews were cancer pain, low back pain, and neck pain. High quality reviews concluded that there was low strength of evidence of potential benefits of massage for labor, shoulder, neck, low back, cancer, arthritis, postoperative, delayed onset muscle soreness, and musculoskeletal pain. Reported attributes of massage interventions include style of massage, provider, co-interventions, duration, and comparators, with 14 high-quality reviews reporting all these attributes in their review. Conclusion: Prior reviews have conclusions of low strength of evidence because few primary studies of large samples with rigorous methods had been conducted, leaving evidence gaps about specific massage type for specific pain. Primary studies often do not provide adequate details of massage therapy provided, limiting the extent to which reviews are able to draw conclusions about characteristics such as provider type.

Development of a web-based toolkit to support improvement of care coordination in primary care.

Promising practices for the coordination of chronic care exist, but how to select and share these practices to support quality improvement within a healthcare system is uncertain. This study describes an approach for selecting high-quality tools for an online care coordination toolkit to be used in Veterans Health Administration (VA) primary care practices. We evaluated tools in three steps: (1) an initial screening to identify tools relevant to care coordination in VA primary care, (2) a two-clinician expert review process assessing tool characteristics (e.g. frequency of problem addressed, linkage to patients' experience of care, effect on practice workflow, and sustainability with existing resources) and assigning each tool a summary rating, and (3) semi-structured interviews with VA patients and frontline clinicians and staff. Of 300 potentially relevant tools identified by searching online resources, 65, 38, and 18 remained after steps one, two and three, respectively. The 18 tools cover five topics: managing referrals to specialty care, medication management, patient after-visit summary, patient activation materials, agenda setting, patient pre-visit packet, and provider contact information for patients. The final toolkit provides access to the 18 tools, as well as detailed information about tools' expected benefits, and resources required for tool implementation. Future care coordination efforts can benefit from systematically reviewing available tools to identify those that are high quality and relevant.

Benefits and Harms of Cranial Electrical Stimulation for Chronic Painful Conditions, Depression, Anxiety, and Insomnia: A Systematic Review.

Background: Cranial electrical stimulation (CES) is increasingly popular as a treatment, yet its clinical benefit is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the benefits and harms of CES for adult patients with chronic painful conditions, depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Data Sources: Several databases from inception to 10 October 2017 without language restrictions and references from experts, prior reviews, and manufacturers. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials of CES versus usual care or sham CES that reported pain, depression, anxiety, or sleep outcomes in any language. Data Extraction: Single-reviewer extraction checked by another; dual independent quality assessment; strength-of-evidence grading by the first author with subsequent group discussion. Data Synthesis: Twenty-eight articles from 26 randomized trials met eligibility criteria. The 2 trials that compared CES with usual care were small, and neither reported a statistically significant benefit in pain or anxiety outcomes for patients with fibromyalgia or anxiety, respectively. Fourteen trials with sham or placebo controls involving patients with painful conditions, such as headache, neuromuscular pain, or musculoskeletal pain, had conflicting results. Four trials done more than 40 years ago and 1 from 2014 provided low-strength evidence of a possible modest benefit compared with sham treatments in patients with anxiety and depression. Trials in patients with insomnia (n = 2), insomnia and anxiety (n = 1), or depression (n = 3) had inconclusive or conflicting results. Low-strength evidence suggested that CES does not cause serious side effects. Limitation: Most trials had small sample sizes and short durations; all had high risk of bias due to inadequate blinding. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient that CES has clinically important effects on fibromyalgia, headache, neuromusculoskeletal pain, degenerative joint pain, depression, or insomnia; low-strength evidence suggests modest benefit in patients with anxiety and depression. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative. (PROSPERO: CRD42016023951).

An evidence map of the effect of Tai Chi on health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: This evidence map describes the volume and focus of Tai Chi research reporting health outcomes. Originally developed as a martial art, Tai Chi is typically taught as a series of slow, low-impact movements that integrate the breath, mind, and physical activity to achieve greater awareness and a sense of well-being. METHODS: The evidence map is based on a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched 11 electronic databases from inception to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted with topic experts. We used a bubble plot to graphically display clinical topics, literature size, number of reviews, and a broad estimate of effectiveness. RESULTS: The map is based on 107 systematic reviews. Two thirds of the reviews were published in the last five years. The topics with the largest number of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were general health benefits (51 RCTs), psychological well-being (37 RCTs), interventions for older adults (31 RCTs), balance (27 RCTs), hypertension (18 RCTs), fall prevention (15 RCTs), and cognitive performance (11 RCTs). The map identified a number of areas with evidence of a potentially positive treatment effect on patient outcomes, including Tai Chi for hypertension, fall prevention outside of institutions, cognitive performance, osteoarthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pain, balance confidence, and muscle strength. However, identified reviews cautioned that firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to methodological limitations in the original studies and/or an insufficient number of existing research studies. CONCLUSIONS: Tai Chi has been applied in diverse clinical areas, and for a number of these, systematic reviews have indicated promising results. The evidence map provides a visual overview of Tai Chi research volume and content. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014009907.

Electronic health record-based interventions for improving appropriate diagnostic imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: One driver of increasing health care costs is the use of radiologic imaging procedures. More appropriate use could improve quality and reduce costs. PURPOSE: To review interventions that use the computerized clinical decision-support (CCDS) capabilities of electronic health records to improve appropriate use of diagnostic radiologic test ordering. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in PubMed from 1995 to September 2014 and searches in Web of Science and PubMed of citations related to key articles. STUDY SELECTION: 23 studies, including 3 randomized trials, 7 time-series studies, and 13 pre-post studies that assessed the effect of CCDS on diagnostic radiologic test ordering in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 independent reviewers extracted data on functionality, study outcomes, and context and assessed the quality of included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen studies provided moderate-level evidence that CCDS improves appropriateness (effect size, -0.49 [95% CI, -0.71 to -0.26]) and reduces use (effect size, -0.13 [CI, -0.23 to -0.04]). Interventions with a "hard stop" that prevents a clinician from overriding the CCDS without outside consultation, as well as interventions in integrated care delivery systems, may be more effective. Harms have rarely been assessed but include decreased ordering of appropriate tests and physician dissatisfaction. LIMITATION: Potential for publication bias, insufficient reporting of harms, and poor description of context and implementation. CONCLUSION: Computerized clinical decision support integrated with the electronic health record can improve appropriate use of diagnostic radiology by a moderate amount and decrease use by a small amount. Before widespread adoption can be recommended, more data are needed on potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007469).