Stage 1 of the meaningful use incentive program for electronic health records: a study of readiness for change in ambulatory practice settings in one integrated delivery system.

BACKGROUND: Meaningful Use (MU) provides financial incentives for electronic health record (EHR) implementation. EHR implementation holds promise for improving healthcare delivery, but also requires substantial changes for providers and staff. Establishing readiness for these changes may be important for realizing potential EHR benefits. Our study assesses whether provider/staff perceptions about the appropriateness of MU and their departments' ability to support MU-related changes are associated with their reported readiness for MU-related changes. METHODS: We surveyed providers and staff representing 47 ambulatory practices within an integrated delivery system. We assessed whether respondent's role and practice-setting type (primary versus specialty care) were associated with reported readiness for MU (i.e., willingness to change practice behavior and ability to document actions for MU) and hypothesized predictors of readiness (i.e., perceived appropriateness of MU and department support for MU). We then assessed associations between reported readiness and the hypothesized predictors of readiness. RESULTS: In total, 400 providers/staff responded (response rate approximately 25%). Individuals working in specialty settings were more likely to report that MU will divert attention from other patient-care priorities (12.6% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.019), as compared to those in primary-care settings. As compared to advanced-practice providers and nursing staff, physicians were less likely to have strong confidence in their department's ability to solve MU implementation problems (28.4% vs. 47.1% vs. 42.6%, p = 0.023) and to report strong willingness to change their work practices for MU (57.9% vs. 83.3% vs. 82.0%, p < 0.001). Finally, provider/staff perceptions about whether MU aligns with departmental goals (OR = 3.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.13 to 7.48); MU will divert attention from other patient-care priorities (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.06); their department will support MU-related change efforts (OR = 3.99, 95% CI = 2.13 to 7.48); and their department will be able to solve MU implementation problems (OR = 2.26, 95% CI = 1.26 to 4.06) were associated with their willingness to change practice behavior for MU. CONCLUSIONS: Organizational leaders should gauge provider/staff perceptions about appropriateness and management support of MU-related change, as these perceptions might be related to subsequent implementation.

Role of hospice and home care in a reformed care delivery system: ACOs, bundling, transitions in care, and more.

The way we deliver health care is changing fast and going in the direction of home care and hospice. This timely program addressed the threshold question of how your organization should play a part in a new arena that includes accountable care organizations, bundling of post-acute care, and integrated transitions in care. Should you be a partner with other health care sectors, assuming some of the financial risk for the success or failure of the endeavor? Should you choose instead to be an active participant or possibly a vendor to an integrated health delivery model? Join our panel as they discussed how to determine your role and gauge the community of health in which you function.

One kidney transplant center's experience: linking process improvements and Medicare/Medicaid conditions of participation.

CONTEXT: An institutional priority toward transplantation, dedicated team dynamics, aggressive clinical growth, and optimal care practices are essential for delivering exceptional care to transplant patients. The importance of multidisciplinary integration of these priorities throughout the continuum of patient care is widely recognized in the transplant arena as well as by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). In fact, it is the collaboration within these aspects of care that is necessary for certification by CMS. OBJECTIVES: To establish institution-wide practices, systems, and mechanisms to optimize performance of transplant centers through the use of evidence-based protocols, clinical innovation, and data-driven quality improvements. To develop training programs and competency based orientation addressing the topics needed for transplant nurses, multidisciplinary caregivers, and clinical transplant coordinators who provide care to transplant patients. To comply with the CMS conditions of participation for transplant centers. METHODS: Formation of a renal transplant council and multidisciplinary care team. Flow chart of hospital course from admission to discharge, carefully examining patients' progression through the continuum of care, assessing for barriers to care and knowledge deficits of transplant practitioners. RESULTS: Development of multiple clinical process improvements resulting in the creation of an environment for continuous learning, optimal transplant care, and exceptional outcomes in transplantation as well as compliance with CMS conditions of participation for transplant centers.