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.

The quality of electrodiagnostic tests for carpal tunnel syndrome: Implications for surgery, outcomes, and expenditures.

INTRODUCTION: The quality of electrodiagnostic tests may influence treatment decisions, particularly regarding surgery, affecting health outcomes and health-care expenditures. METHODS: We evaluated test quality among 338 adults with workers' compensation claims for carpal tunnel syndrome. Using simulations, we examined how it influences the appropriateness of surgery. Using regression, we evaluated associations with symptoms and functional limitations (Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire), overall health (12-item Short Form Health Survey version 2), actual receipt of surgery, and expenditures. RESULTS: In simulations, suboptimal quality tests rendered surgery inappropriate for 99 of 309 patients (+32 percentage points). In regression analyses, patients with the highest quality tests had larger declines in symptoms (-0.50 point; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.89 to -0.12) and functional impairment (-0.42 point; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.06) than patients with the lowest quality tests. Test quality was not associated with overall health, actual receipt of surgery, or expenditures. DISCUSSION: Test quality is pivotal to determining surgical appropriateness and associated with meaningful differences in symptoms and function.

Quality of electrodiagnostic testing for carpal tunnel syndrome: adherence to quality measures.

INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that quality of health-care services is often suboptimal. Little is known about the quality of electrodiagnostic testing. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 477 adults with workers' compensation claims for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) from 30 occupational health clinics and evaluated whether electrodiagnostic testing adhered to five process-oriented quality measures. RESULTS: Among patients who had surgery for CTS, nearly all underwent recommended preoperative electrodiagnostic testing (measure #1, 170 of 174, 97.7%). Most electrodiagnostic tests included essential components (measure #2, 295 of 379, 77.8%). However, few reports documented skin temperature (measure #3, 93 of 379, 24.5%) and criteria were seldom met for interpreting test findings as consistent with CTS (measure #4, 41 of 284, 14.4%) or "severe" CTS (measure #5, 8 of 46, 17.4%). DISCUSSION: Most patients underwent testing before surgery, but test quality was often suboptimal. This work lays the groundwork for future efforts to monitor and improve the quality of electrodiagnostic testing for CTS.