Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 170(9_Suppl): S93-S102, 2019 05 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31060060

RESUMO

Background: Patients desire information about health care costs because they are increasingly responsible for these costs. Public Web sites that offer cost information could inform provider-patient discussions of costs at the point of care. Objective: To evaluate tools to facilitate the use of publicly available cost information during clinical visits for low back pain (LBP). Design: Qualitative study using individual and group interviews and surveys. Setting: 6 rural primary care practices in 2 health systems in Maine. Participants: Practice staff (n = 50) and adult patients with LBP (n = 72). Intervention: Participating health systems and practices were offered financial incentives, a series of trainings, and technical assistance to pilot tools for discussing costs of LBP care using CompareMaine.org, Maine's cost and quality transparency Web site. Measurements: Integration of tools into workflow, awareness and value to providers, and patient experience were identified through 11 group interviews with practice staff (n = 25) and health system leaders (n = 11), provider (n = 25), and patient (n = 47) surveys; patient interviews (n = 5); and administrative data. Results: The intervention increased provider and consumer awareness of CompareMaine.org, but minimally changed use in clinical discussions as a result of fewer-than-expected patients with LBP, limited system support, workflow barriers, and providers' reluctance to adopt the tools because of perceptions of limited value for their patients. In contrast, patients valued cost conversations and found the tools useful, and over one half reported intending to use CompareMaine.org during future care decisions. Limitations: Generalizability was limited by the small number of practices and participants. Lower-than-anticipated participation precluded examination of the effect of the tool on the frequency of cost-of-care conversations. Conclusion: This multicomponent intervention to introduce publicly reported cost information into LBP clinical discussions had low provider uptake. Whereas cost conversations and CompareMaine.org were perceived as useful by participating patients with LBP, providers were uncomfortable discussing cost variation at the point of care. Successful use of public cost information during clinical visits will require normalizing use to a broader group of patients and greater provider outreach and health system engagement. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Gastos em Saúde , Dor Lombar/economia , Relações Médico-Paciente , Atenção Primária à Saúde/economia , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administração , Adulto , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Maine , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Fluxo de Trabalho
2.
J Healthc Qual ; 37(1): 55-65, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26042377

RESUMO

The "siloed" approach to healthcare delivery contributes to communication challenges and to potential patient harm when patients transfer between settings. This article reports on the evaluation of a demonstration in 10 rural communities to improve the safety of nursing facility (NF) transfers to hospital emergency departments by forming interprofessional teams of hospital, emergency medical service, and NF staff to develop and implement tools and protocols for standardizing critical interfacility communication pathways and information sharing. We worked with each of the 10 teams to document current communication processes and information sharing tools and to design, implement, and evaluate strategies/tools to increase effective communication and sharing of patient information across settings. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate changes from baseline in documentation of patient information shared across settings during the transfer process. Study findings showed significant improvement in key areas across the three settings, including infection status and baseline mental functioning. Improvement strategies and performance varied across settings; however, accurate and consistent information sharing of advance directives and medication lists remains a challenge. Study results demonstrate that with neutral facilitation and technical support, collaborative interfacility teams can assess and effectively address communication and information sharing problems that threaten patient safety.


Assuntos
Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/organização & administração , Disseminação de Informação , Casas de Saúde/organização & administração , População Rural , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência/normas , Humanos , Maine , Segurança do Paciente/normas , Transferência de Pacientes , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Transporte de Pacientes/organização & administração
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...