Patients' and Providers' Views on Causes and Consequences of Healthcare Fragmentation in the Ambulatory Setting: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic conditions routinely see multiple outpatient providers, who may or may not communicate with each other. Gaps in information across providers caring for the same patient can lead to harm for patients. However, the exact causes and consequences of healthcare fragmentation are not understood well enough to design interventions to address them. OBJECTIVE: We sought to elicit patients' and providers' views on the causes and consequences of healthcare fragmentation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a qualitative study with focus groups of patients and, separately, of providers (attending physicians and nurse practitioners) at an academic hospital-based primary care practice in New York City in June-August 2017. Patient participants were English-speaking adults with ≥ 2 chronic conditions. APPROACH: Each focus group lasted 1 h and asked the same two questions: "Why do you think some patients receive care from many different providers and others do not?" and "What do you think happens as a result of patients receiving care from many different providers?" Data collection continued until a point of data saturation was reached. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: We conducted 6 focus groups with a total of 46 participants (25 patients and 21 providers). Study participants identified 41 unique causes of fragmentation, which originate from 4 different levels of the healthcare system (patient, provider, healthcare organization, and healthcare environment); most causes were not related to medical need. Participants also identified 24 unique consequences of fragmentation, of which 3 were desirable and 21 were undesirable. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study offer a granular roadmap for how to decrease healthcare fragmentation. The large number and severity of negative consequences (including medical errors, misdiagnosis, increased cost, and provider burnout) underscore the urgent need for interventions to address this problem directly.

Ambulatory Care Utilization Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Depression.

The association between depression and ambulatory care utilization is unclear. The authors sought to determine the association between untreated depression and ambulatory care utilization, including the extent to which care is fragmented, or spread across providers. The authors conducted a longitudinal study using data from the nationwide REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke study linked to Medicare fee-for-service claims (N = 1412). They categorized participants into three study groups, based on self-reported depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale score ≥ 4) and a medication inventory for antidepressants: Symptomatic Untreated (SU), Symptomatic Treated (ST), and Asymptomatic Treated (AT). The authors used descriptive statistics to characterize ambulatory care patterns by study group. They determined the association between the study group and fragmentation score (with high fragmentation defined as a reversed Bice-Boxerman Index ≥ 0.85) using multivariable logistic regression. All groups had similar numbers of primary care visits, but the SU group had the fewest specialist visits. The SU group had the lowest proportion of participants who received care from a psychiatrist (3.4% vs. 10.7% for ST and 11.9% for AT, pairwise P-values < 0.001). The SU group was the least likely to have highly fragmented care (adjusted odds ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval 0.48, 0.95, compared with the ST group). These results suggest that older adults with untreated depression are not engaged in excess care-seeking behaviors. Rather, the results suggest undertreatment of depression in primary care and underutilization of psychiatric care.

Understanding How Providers and Staff Make Decisions About Where to Refer Their Patients: A Qualitative Study.

Value-based payment incentivizes primary care providers (PCPs) to refer patients to specialists inside their own organization. "Outmigration" of patients to specialists in other organizations is common, yet why it occurs is not clear. We conducted qualitative interviews of PCPs, nurses, and administrative staff at primary care practices in a physician organization (PO) to determine reasons for outmigration. While participants reported that they preferred making within-PO referrals, they identified 18 barriers to within-PO referrals, which often led to patients receiving care elsewhere. Many of these barriers are potentially modifiable and could inform the design of future interventions to decrease unnecessary outmigration.