A Framework for Rigorous Qualitative Research as a Component of Mixed Method Rapid-Cycle Evaluation.

As federal, state, and local governments continue to test innovative approaches to health care delivery, the ability to produce timely and reliable evidence of what works and why it works is crucial. There is limited literature on methodological approaches to rapid-cycle qualitative research. The purpose of this article is to describe the advantages and limitations of a broadly applicable framework for in-depth qualitative analysis placed within a larger rapid-cycle, multisite, mixed-method evaluation. This evaluation included multiple cycles of primary qualitative data collection and quarterly and annual reporting. Several strategies allowed us to be adaptable while remaining rigorous; these included planning for multiple waves of qualitative coding, a hybrid inductive/deductive approach informed by a cross-program evaluation framework, and use of a large team with specific program expertise. Lessons from this evaluation can inform researchers and evaluators functioning in rapid assessment or rapid-cycle evaluation contexts.

Two Innovative Cancer Care Programs Have Potential to Reduce Utilization and Spending.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients often present to the emergency department (ED) and hospital for symptom management, but many of these visits are avoidable and costly. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the impact of 2 Health Care Innovation Awards that used an oncology medical home model [Community Oncology Medical Home (COME HOME)] or patient navigation model [Patient Care Connect Program (PCCP)] on utilization and spending. METHODS: Participants in COME HOME and PCCP models were matched to similar comparators using propensity scores. We analyzed utilization and spending outcomes using Medicare fee-for-service claims with unadjusted and adjusted difference-in-differences models. RESULTS: In the adjusted models, both COME HOME and PCCP were associated with fewer ED visits than a comparison group (15 and 22 per 1000 patients/quarter, respectively; P<0.01). In addition, COME HOME had lower spending ($675 per patient/quarter; P<0.01), and PCCP had fewer hospitalizations (11 per 1000 patients/quarter; P<0.05), relative to the comparison group. Among patients undergoing chemotherapy, fewer COME HOME and PCCP patients had ED visits (18 and 28 per 1000 patients/quarter, respectively; P<0.01) and fewer PCCP patients had hospitalizations (13 per 1000 patients/quarter; P<0.05), than comparison patients. CONCLUSIONS: The oncology medical home and patient navigator programs both showed reductions in spending or utilization. Adoption of such programs holds promise for improving cancer care.

Physician Engagement Strategies in Care Coordination: Findings from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Health Care Innovation Awards Program.

OBJECTIVE: To identify roles physicians assumed as part of new health care delivery models and related strategies that facilitated physician engagement across 21 Health Care Innovation Award (HCIA) programs. DATA SOURCES: Site-level in-depth interviews, conducted from 2014 to 2015 (N = 672) with program staff, leadership, and partners (including 95 physicians) and direct observations. STUDY DESIGN: NORC conducted a mixed-method evaluation, including two rounds of qualitative data collected via site visits and telephone interviews. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We used qualitative thematic coding for data from 21 programs actively engaging physicians as part of HCIA interventions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Establishing physician champions and ensuring an innovation-values fit between physicians and programs, including the strategies programs employed, facilitated engagement. Among engagement practices identified in this study, tailoring team working styles to meet physician preferences and conducting physician outreach and education were the most common successful approaches. CONCLUSIONS: We describe engagement strategies derived from a diverse range of programs. Successful programs considered physicians' values and engagement as components of process and policy, rather than viewing them as exogenous factors affecting innovation adoption. These types of approaches enabled programs to accelerate acceptance of innovations within organizations.

Public attitudes about health information technology, and its relationship to health care quality, costs, and privacy.

OBJECTIVE: To understand Americans' attitudes concerning health information technology's (IT's) potential to improve health care and differences in those attitudes based on demographics and technological affinity. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: A random-digit-dial sample with known probability of selection for every household in the United States with a telephone, plus a supplemental sample of cell phone users. Telephone interviews were conducted from August 2009 through November 2009. STUDY DESIGN: Data were analyzed to present univariate estimates of Americans' opinions of health IT, as well as multivariate logistic regressions to assess hypotheses relating individuals' characteristics to their opinions. Characteristics used in our model include age, race, ethnicity, gender, income, and affinity to technology. FINDINGS: A large majority (78 percent) favor use of electronic medical records (EMRs); believe EMRs could improve care and reduce costs (78 percent and 59 percent, respectively); believe benefits of EMR use outweigh privacy risks (64 percent); and support health care information sharing among providers (72 percent). Regression analyses show more positive attitudes among those with higher incomes and greater comfort using electronic technologies. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that Americans believe that health IT adoption is an effective means to improve the quality and safety of health care.

Measurement of the utilization of an installed electronic health record.

For the past decade, adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has been proposed as one of the most viable approaches to improving the United States health care system. Although there is evidence that EHR adoption is slowly progressing, current methods of assessing adoption have yielded significant variance in estimates of EHR utilization. We conducted an environmental scan consisting of a review of the literature as well as a series of discussions with health center and health center network representatives and experts in the field to understand the current state of EHR adoption and use in the United States and assess the feasibility of developing a systematic approach to tracking EHR usage.

Advancing the ePrescribing research.

In 2006 CMS and AHRQ funded the National Resource Center for Health IT (NRC) to evaluate the findings from the 5 CMS ePrescribing (eRx) pilots. During this evaluation, the NRC identified research areas from: 1) questions left unanswered by the pilot contractors, 2) gaps in knowledge identified by the evaluation team and, 3) areas requiring additional industry experience. The research areas encompass standards, implementation considerations and outcomes such as ADEs, pharmacy workflow and physician adoption.

The perceived financial impact of quality improvement efforts in community health centers.

We administered surveys to 100 chief executive officers (CEOs) of community health centers to determine their perceptions of the financial impact of the Health Disparities Collaboratives, a national quality improvement initiative. One third of the CEOs believed that the HDC had a negative financial impact on their health center, and this perception was significantly correlated with centers having a higher proportion of uninsured patients. Performance-based payment incentives may improve care but may also add new financial burdens to facilities that treat the uninsured population. As such, a provider's payer mix may need to be considered in the design of QI programs if they are to be sustainable.