Recommendations for the Evaluation of Cross-System Care Coordination from the VA State-of-the-art Working Group on VA/Non-VA Care.

In response to widespread concerns regarding Veterans' access to VA care, Congress enacted the Veterans Access, Choice and Accountability Act of 2014, which required VA to establish the Veterans Choice Program (VCP). Since the inception of VCP, more than two million Veterans have received care from community providers, representing approximately 25% of Veterans enrolled in VA care. However, expanded access to non-VA care has created challenges in care coordination between VA and community health systems. In March 2018, the VA Health Services Research & Development Service hosted a VA State of the Art conference (SOTA) focused on care coordination. The SOTA convened VA researchers, program directors, clinicians, and policy makers to identify knowledge gaps regarding care coordination within the VA and between VA and community systems of care. This article provides a summary and synthesis of relevant literature and provides recommendations generated from the SOTA about how to evaluate cross-system care coordination. Care coordination is typically evaluated using health outcomes including hospital readmissions and death; however, in cross-system evaluations of care coordination, measures such as access, cost, Veteran/patient and provider satisfaction (including with cross-system communication), comparable quality metrics, context (urban vs. rural), and patient complexity (medical and mental health conditions) need to be included to fully evaluate care coordination effectiveness. Future research should examine the role of multiple individuals coordinating VA and non-VA care, and how these coordinators work together to optimize coordination.

Developing a Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework: Implications for Clinical Care, Research, and Policy.

There are now close to 17 million cancer survivors in the United States, and this number is expected to continue to grow. One decade ago the Institute of Medicine report, From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition, outlined 10 recommendations aiming to provide coordinated, comprehensive care for cancer survivors. Although there has been noteworthy progress made since the release of the report, gaps remain in research, clinical practice, and policy. Specifically, the recommendation calling for the development of quality measures in cancer survivorship care has yet to be fulfilled. In this commentary, we describe the development of a comprehensive, evidence-based cancer survivorship care quality framework and propose the next steps to systematically apply it in clinical settings, research, and policy.

When is collaboration not collaboration? When it's militarized.

In adopting the medical lobby's preferred definition of collaboration where midwives are legally compelled to seek endorsement for their care plan from an obstetrician, Determination 2010 connotes a form of militarized collaboration and thus negates all that genuine collaboration stands for--equality, mutual trust and reciprocal respect. Using Critical Discourse Analysis, the first half of this paper analyses the submissions from medical, midwifery and consumer peak organisations to the Maternity Services Review and Senate reviews held between 2008 and 2010 showing that Determination 2010 privileges the medical lobby worldview in adopting a vertical definition of collaboration. The second half of the paper responds to the principal assumption of Determination 2010--that midwives do not voluntarily collaborate. It argues by reference to a qualitative inquiry conducted into select caseload maternity units in South Australia, Victoria and New South Wales during 2009-2010 that this presupposition is erroneous. The evidence shows that genuine collaboration is possible without legislative force but it requires a coalition of the willing among senior midwives and obstetricians to institute regular interdisciplinary meetings and clinical reviews and to model respectful behaviour to new entrants.

The long road to better ACHD care.

The care of adult patients with congenital heart defects in the United States is spotty at best, and needs to improve greatly if the needs of these patients are to be met. The care of American children with congenital heart defects is generally excellent. Pediatric cardiac services are well established and well supported. The care of adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) is well established in only a few American centers. While there are an increasing number of clinics, they are generally poorly resourced with relatively few patients. If located in adult cardiology programs, they are usually minor players. If located in pediatric cardiac programs, they are usually minor players as well. Training programs for adult CHD (ACHD) caregivers are few, informal, and poorly funded. To improve the situation, we need perhaps 25 well-resourced and well-established regional ACHD centers in the United States. We need to stop the loss to care of CHD patients at risk of poor outcomes. We need to educate patients and families about the need for lifelong and skilled surveillance and care. We need to effect an orderly transfer from pediatric to adult care. We need to strengthen the human resource infrastructure of ACHD care through the training and hiring of healthcare professionals of a quality equivalent to those working in the pediatric care environment. We need to demonstrate that adult care is high quality care. We need more high-quality ACHD research. The ACHD community needs to establish its credibility with pediatric cardiac providers, adult cardiology groups, with governments, with professional organizations, and with research funding agencies. Accordingly, there is a need for strong political action on behalf of American ACHD patients. This must be led by patients and families. These efforts should be supported by pediatric cardiologists and children's hospitals, as well as by national professional organizations, governments, and health insurance companies. The goal of this political action should be to see that ACHD patients can receive high-quality lifelong surveillance, that we lose fewer patients to care, and that the staff and other services needed are available nationwide.

Analysis & commentary. The foundation that health reform lays for improved payment, care coordination, and prevention.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act represents a major opportunity to achieve several key goals at once: improving disease prevention; reforming care delivery; and bending the cost curve of health spending while also realizing greater value for the dollars spent. Reform-based initiatives could produce major gains in a relatively short time. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services should develop an action plan detailing how the programs that the health reform law sets into motion throughout various agencies can work synergistically. It should also detail how best practices in finance and payment, in the organization and delivery of care, and in prevention can be expanded nationally.

Working through the frustrations of clinical integration.

Everybody--hospitals, physicians, payers and even government regulators--agree that if all of a patient's providers coordinate her care, the whole process would be simpler, safer and more effective. But federal laws, the cost of information technology, physician reluctance to team with hospitals and other factors keep getting in the way. Could those obstadcles to clinical integration finally be melting away?