Has cross-level clinical coordination changed in the context of the pandemic? The case of the Catalan health system.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic triggered numerous changes in health services organisation, whose effects on clinical coordination are unknown. The aim is to analyse changes in the experience and perception of cross-level clinical coordination and related factors of primary (PC) and secondary care (SC) doctors in the Catalan health system between 2017 and 2022. METHODS: Comparison of two cross-sectional studies based on online surveys by means of the self-administration of the COORDENA-CAT (2017) and COORDENA-TICs (2022) questionnaires to PC and SC doctors. Final sample n = 3308 in 2017 and n = 2277 in 2022. OUTCOME VARIABLES: experience of cross-level information and clinical management coordination and perception of cross-level clinical coordination in the healthcare area and related factors. Stratification variables: level of care and year. Adjusting variables: sex, years of experience, type of specialty, type of hospital, type of management of PC/SC. Descriptive bivariate and multivariate analysis using Poisson regressions models to detect changes between years in total and by levels of care. RESULTS: Compared with 2017, while cross-level clinical information coordination remained relatively high, with a slight improvement, doctors of both care levels reported a worse experience of cross-level clinical management coordination, particularly of care consistency (repetition of test) and accessibility to PC and, of general perception, which was worse in SC doctors. There was also a worsening in organisational (institutional support, set objectives, time available for coordination), attitudinal (job satisfaction) and interactional factors (knowledge between doctors). The use of ICT-based coordination mechanisms such as shared electronic medical records and electronic consultations between PC and SC increased, while the participation in virtual joint clinical conferences was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Results show a slight improvement in clinical information but also less expected setbacks in some dimensions of clinical management coordination and in the perception of clinical coordination, suggesting that the increased use of some ICT-based coordination mechanisms did not counteract the effect of the worsened organisational, interactional, and attitudinal factors during the pandemic. Strategies are needed to facilitate direct communication, to improve conditions for the effective use of mechanisms and policies to protect healthcare professionals and services in order to better cope with new crises.

Is clinical coordination across care levels different according to the secondary care medical speciality? Results from the Catalan health system.

BACKGROUND: Despite the scarce evidence, some studies suggest that cross-level clinical coordination may vary among secondary care (SC) doctors, influenced by their speciality and organisational model, including degree of decentralisation to primary care (PC). The aim was to determine the differences in experience and perception of cross-level clinical coordination and related factors according to the SC doctor's speciality in the Catalan health system. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, based on an on-line survey using the COORDENA-CAT questionnaire, to SC doctors (n = 1666). Descriptive and multivariate analysis were used to compare five groups of SC specialities (decentralised, hospital-based, internists/geriatricians, gynaecologist, and paediatricians), for experience, perception and factors related to coordination. RESULTS: When comparing with decentralised specialities, hospital-based specialities and internal medicine/geriatrics reported lower care consistency and follow up across levels, while gynaecology and paediatrics, higher accessibility. General perception of cross-level coordination was lower in hospital-based specialities (PR:0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89) and higher in gynaecology (PR:1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). Moreover, hospital-based specialities reported a lower use of some coordination mechanisms and lower knowledge of the primary care doctors (PR:0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.72), while gynaecology a higher knowledge (PR:2.04, 95% CI 1.22-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Results show differences in experience, perception of coordination, organisational and interactional factors across specialities. These differences may be explained by their complexity, coordination needs and organisational model. Further research is needed to clarify and understand the causes of such differences and the particular needs of coordination of each speciality to identify strategies to improve cross-level clinical coordination.

Impact of coordination mechanisms based on information and communication technologies on cross-level clinical coordination: A scoping review.

Background: Coordination mechanisms based on information and communication technologies (ICTs) are gaining attention, especially since the pandemic, due to their potential to improve communication between health professionals. However, their impact on cross-level clinical coordination remains unclear. The aim is to synthesize the evidence on the impact of ICT-based coordination mechanisms on clinical coordination between primary care and secondary care (SC) doctors and to identify knowledge gaps. Methods: A scoping review was conducted by searching for original articles in six electronic databases and a manual search, with no restrictions regarding time, area, or methodology. Titles and abstracts were screened. Full texts of the selected articles were reviewed and analysed to assess the impact of each mechanism, according to the cross-level clinical coordination conceptual framework. Results: Of the 6555 articles identified, 30 met the inclusion criteria. All had been conducted in high-income countries, most (n = 26) evaluated the impact of a single mechanism - asynchronous electronic consultations via electronic health records (EHR) - and were limited in terms of design and types and dimensions of cross-level clinical coordination analysed. The evaluation of electronic consultations showed positive impacts on the appropriateness of referrals and accessibility to SC, yet the qualitative studies also highlighted potential risks. Studies on other mechanisms were scarce (shared EHR, email consultations) or non-existent (videoconferencing, mobile applications). Conclusions: Evidence of the impact of ICT-based mechanisms on clinical coordination between levels is limited. Rigorous evaluations are needed to inform policies and strategies for improving coordination between healthcare levels, thus contributing to high-quality, efficient healthcare.