Intensity, Characteristics, and Factors Associated With Receipt of Care Coordination Among High-Risk Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has initiatives underway to enhance the provision of care coordination (CC), particularly among high-risk Veterans. Yet, evidence detailing the characteristics of and who receives VHA CC is limited. OBJECTIVES: We examined intensity, timing, setting, and factors associated with VHA CC among high-risk Veterans. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, following Veterans for 1 year after being identified as high-risk for hospitalization or mortality, to characterize their CC. Demographic and clinical factors predictive of CC were identified via multivariate logistic regression. SUBJECTS: A total of 1,843,272 VHA-enrolled high-risk Veterans in fiscal years 2019-2021. MEASURES: We measured 5 CC variables during the year after Veterans were identified as high risk: (1) receipt of any service, (2) number of services received, (3) number of days to first service, (4) number of days between services, and (5) type of visit during which services were received. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of high-risk Veterans in the sample received CC during one-year follow-up. Among Veterans who received ≥1 service, a median of 2 [IQR (1, 6)] services were received. Among Veterans who received ≥2 services, there was a median of 26 [IQR (10, 57)] days between services. Most services were received during outpatient psychiatry (46%) or medicine (16%) visits. Veterans' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with receipt of CC. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of Veterans received CC in the year after being identified as high-risk, and there was variation in intensity, timing, and setting of CC. Research is needed to examine the fit between Veterans' CC needs and preferences and VHA CC delivery.

Patient-reported outcome and experience domains for diagnostic excellence: a scoping review to inform future measure development.

PURPOSE: "Diagnostic excellence," as a relatively new construct centered on the diagnostic process and its health-related outcomes, can be refined by patient reporting and its measurement. We aimed to explore the scope of patient-reported outcome (PRO) and patient-reported experience (PRE) domains that are diagnostically relevant, regardless of the future diagnosed condition, and to review the state of measurement of these patient-reported domains. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory analysis to identify these domains by employing a scoping review supplemented with internal expert consultations, 24-member international expert convening, additional environmental scans, and the validation of the domains' diagnostic relevance via mapping these onto patient diagnostic journeys. We created a narrative bibliography of the domains illustrating them with existing measurement examples. RESULTS: We identified 41 diagnostically relevant PRO and PRE domains. We classified 10 domains as PRO, 28 as PRE, and three as mixed PRO/PRE. Among these domains, 19 were captured in existing instruments, and 20 were captured only in qualitative studies. Two domains were conceptualized during this exploratory analysis with no examples identified of capturing these domains. For 27 domains, patients and care partners report on a specific encounter; for 14 domains, reporting relates to an entire diagnostic journey over time, which presents particular measurement opportunities and challenges. CONCLUSION: The multitude of PRO and PRE domains, if measured rigorously, would allow the diagnostic excellence construct to evolve further and in a manner that is patient-centered, prospectively focused, and concentrates on effectiveness and efficiency of diagnostic care on patients' well-being.

Betrayal-Based Moral Injury and Mental Health Problems Among Healthcare and Hospital Workers Serving COVID-19 Patients.

One factor potentially driving healthcare and hospital worker (HHW)'s declining mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic is feeling betrayed by institutional leaders, coworkers, and/or others' pandemic-related responses and behaviors. We investigated whether HHWs' betrayal-based moral injury was associated with greater mental distress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms related to COVID-19. We also examined if these associations varied between clinical and non-clinical staff. From July 2020 to January 2021, cross-sectional online survey data were collected from 1,066 HHWs serving COVID-19 patients in a large urban US healthcare system. We measured betrayal-based moral injury in three groups: institutional leaders, coworkers/colleagues, and people outside of healthcare. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate whether betrayal-based moral injury was associated with mental distress and PTSD symptoms. Approximately one-third of HHWs reported feeling betrayed by institutional leaders, and/or people outside healthcare. Clinical staff were more likely to report feelings of betrayal than non-clinical staff. For all respondents, 49.5% reported mental distress and 38.2% reported PTSD symptoms. Having any feelings of betrayal increased the odds of mental distress and PTSD symptoms by 2.9 and 3.3 times, respectively. These associations were not significantly different between clinical and non-clinical staff. As health systems seek to enhance support of HHWs, they need to carefully examine institutional structures, accountability, communication, and decision-making patterns that can result in staff feelings of betrayal. Building trust and repairing ruptures with HHWs could prevent potential mental health problems, increase retention, and reduce burnout, while likely improving patient care.

"A slap in the face": Institutional betrayal, burnout, and career choice regret among frontline health care workers serving COVID-19 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacted a physical and mental health toll on health care and hospital workers (HHWs). To provide COVID-19 care, HHWs expected health care institutions to support equipment and resources, ensure safety for patients and providers, and advocate for employees' needs. Failure to do these acts has been defined as institutional betrayal. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aimed to explore the experience of institutional betrayal in HHWs serving COVID-19 patients and the associations between self-reported institutional betrayal and both burnout and career choice regret. Between July 2020 and January 2021, HHWs working in an urban U.S. health care system participated in an online survey (n = 1,189) and semistructured interview (n = 67). Among 1,075 quantitative participants, 57.8% endorsed institutional betrayal. Qualitative participants described frustration when the institution did not prioritize their safety while reporting they perceived receiving inadequate compensation from the system and felt that leadership did not sufficiently respond to their needs. Participants who endorsed prolonged breaches of trust reported more burnout and stronger intent to quit their job. Quantitatively, institutional betrayal endorsement was associated with 3-fold higher odds of burnout, aOR = 2.94, 95% CI [2.22, 3.89], and 4-fold higher odds of career choice regret, aOR = 4.31, 95% CI [3.15, 5.89], compared to no endorsement. Developing strategies to prevent, address, and repair institutional betrayal in HHWs may be critical to prevent and reduce burnout and increase motivation to work during and after public health emergencies.

Crossing Academic Boundaries for Diagnostic Safety: 10 Complex Challenges and Potential Solutions From Clinical Perspectives and High-Reliability Organizing Principles.

OBJECTIVE: We apply the high-reliability organization (HRO) paradigm to the diagnostic process, outlining challenges to enacting HRO principles in diagnosis and offering solutions for how diagnostic process stakeholders can overcome these barriers. BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that healthcare is starting to organize for higher reliability by employing various principles and practices of HRO. These hold promise for enhancing safer care, but there has been little consideration of the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face while enacting HRO principles in the diagnostic process. To effectively deploy the HRO perspective, these barriers must be seriously considered. METHOD: We review key principles of the HRO paradigm, the diagnostic errors and harms that potentially can be prevented by its enactment, the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face in executing various principles and practices, and possible solutions that clinicians and organizational leaders can take to overcome these challenges and barriers. RESULTS: Our analyses reveal multiple challenges including the inherent diagnostic uncertainty; the lack of diagnosis-focused performance feedback; the fact that diagnosis is often a solo, rather than team, activity; the tendency to simplify the diagnostic process; and professional and institutional status hierarchies. But these challenges are not insurmountable-there are strategies and solutions available to overcome them. CONCLUSION: The HRO lens offers some important ideas for how the safety of the diagnostic process can be improved. APPLICATION: The ideas proposed here can be enacted by both individual clinicians and healthcare leaders; both are necessary for making systematic progress in enhancing diagnostic performance.

Integrating Adjuvant Analgesics into Perioperative Pain Practice: Results from an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-sparing postoperative pain management therapies are important considering the opioid epidemic. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and painful procedure accounting for a large number of opioid prescriptions. Adjuvant analgesics, nonopioid drugs with primary indications other than pain, have shown beneficial pain management and opioid-sparing effects following TKA in clinical trials. We evaluated the adjuvant analgesic gabapentin for its usage patterns and its effects on opioid use, pain, and readmissions. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included 4,046 patients who received primary TKA between 2009 and 2017 using electronic health records from an academic tertiary care medical institute. Descriptive statistics and multivariate modeling were used to estimate associations between inpatient gabapentin use and adverse pain outcomes as well as inpatient oral morphine equivalents per day (OME). RESULTS: Overall, there was an 8.72% annual increase in gabapentin use (P < 0.001). Modeled estimates suggest that gabapentin is associated with a significant decrease in opioid consumption (estimate = 0.63, 95% confidence interval = 0.49-0.82, P < 0.001) when controlling for patient characteristics. Patients receiving gabapentin had similar discharge pain scores, follow-up pain scores, and 30-day unplanned readmission rates compared with patients receiving no adjuvant analgesics (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When assessed in a real-world setting over a large cohort of TKA patients, gabapentin is an effective pain management therapy that is associated with reduced opioid consumption-a national priority in this time of opioid crisis-while maintaining the same quality of pain management.

Health Care Coordination Theoretical Frameworks: a Systematic Scoping Review to Increase Their Understanding and Use in Practice.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is crucial to avoid potential risks of care fragmentation in people with complex care needs. While there are many empirical and conceptual approaches to measuring and improving care coordination, use of theory is limited by its complexity and the wide variability of available frameworks. We systematically identified and categorized existing care coordination theoretical frameworks in new ways to make the theory-to-practice link more accessible. METHODS: To identify relevant frameworks, we searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from 2010 to May 2018, and various other nonbibliographic sources. We summarized framework characteristics and organized them using categories from the Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing, and performancE (SELFIE) framework. Based on expert input, we then categorized available frameworks on consideration of whether they addressed contextual factors, what locus they addressed, and their design elements. We used predefined criteria for study selection and data abstraction. RESULTS: Among 4389 citations, we identified 37 widely diverse frameworks, including 16 recent frameworks unidentified by previous reviews. Few led to development of measures (39%) or initiatives (6%). We identified 5 that are most relevant to primary care. The 2018 framework by Weaver et al., describing relationships between a wide range of primary care-specific domains, may be the most useful to those investigating the effectiveness of primary care coordination approaches. We also identified 3 frameworks focused on locus and design features of implementation that could prove especially useful to those responsible for implementing care coordination. DISCUSSION: This review identified the most comprehensive frameworks and their main emphases for several general practice-relevant applications. Greater application of these frameworks in the design and evaluation of coordination approaches may increase their consistent implementation and measurement. Future research should emphasize implementation-focused frameworks that better identify factors and mechanisms through which an initiative achieves impact.

Incorporating Theory into Practice: Reconceptualizing Exemplary Care Coordination Initiatives from the US Veterans Health Delivery System.

This perspective paper seeks to lay out an efficient approach for health care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in interventions aimed at improving care coordination to partner in locating and using applicable care coordination theory. The objective is to learn from relevant theory-based literature about fit between intervention options and coordination needs, thereby bringing insights from theory to enhance intervention design, implementation, and troubleshooting. To take this idea from an abstract notion to tangible application, our workgroup on models and measures from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) State of the Art (SOTA) conference on care coordination first summarizes our distillation of care coordination theoretical frameworks (models) into three common conceptual domains-context of an intervention, locus in which an intervention is applied, and specific design features of the intervention. Then we apply these three conceptual domains to four cases of care coordination interventions ("use cases") chosen to represent various scopes and stages of interventions to improve care coordination for veterans. Taken together, these examples make theory more accessible and practical by demonstrating how it can be applied to specific cases. Drawing from theory offers one method to anticipate which intervention options match a particular coordination situation.

PSA Testing Use and Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Stage After the 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guideline Changes.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center's electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the guideline changes. RESULTS: In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (

Organizational Influences on Time Pressure Stressors and Potential Patient Consequences in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Primary care teams face daily time pressures both during patient encounters and outside of appointments. OBJECTIVES: We theorize 2 types of time pressure, and test hypotheses about organizational determinants and patient consequences of time pressure. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional, observational analysis of data from concurrent surveys of care team members and their patients. SUBJECTS: Patients (n=1291 respondents, 73.5% response rate) with diabetes and/or coronary artery disease established with practice teams (n=353 respondents, 84% response rate) at 16 primary care sites, randomly selected from 2 Accountable Care Organizations. MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: We measured team member perceptions of 2 potentially distinct time pressure constructs: (1) encounter-level, from 7 questions about likelihood that time pressure results in missing patient management opportunities; and (2) practice-level, using practice atmosphere rating from calm to chaotic. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-11) instrument measured patient-reported experience. Multivariate logistic regression models examined organizational predictors of each time pressure type, and hierarchical models examined time pressure predictors of patient-reported experiences. RESULTS: Encounter-level and practice-level time pressure measures were not correlated, nor predicted by the same organizational variables, supporting the hypothesis of two distinct time pressure constructs. More encounter-level time pressure was most strongly associated with less health information technology capability (odds ratio, 0.33; P<0.01). Greater practice-level time pressure (chaos) was associated with lower PACIC-11 scores (odds ratio, 0.74; P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Different organizational factors are associated with each forms of time pressure. Potential consequences for patients are missed opportunities in patient care and inadequate chronic care support.

Utilization and effectiveness of multimodal discharge analgesia for postoperative pain management.

BACKGROUND: Although evidence-based guidelines recommend a multimodal approach to pain management, limited information exists on adherence to these guidelines and its association with outcomes in a generalized population. We sought to assess the association between discharge multimodal analgesia and postoperative pain outcomes in two diverse health care settings. METHODS: We evaluated patients undergoing four common surgeries associated with high pain in electronic health records from an academic hospital (AH) and Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Multimodal analgesia at discharge was characterized as opioids in combination with acetaminophen (O + A) and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory (O + A + N) drugs. Hierarchical models estimated associations of analgesia with 45-d follow-up pain scores and 30-d readmissions. RESULTS: We identified 7893 patients at AH and 34,581 at VHA. In both settings, most patients were discharged with O + A (60.6% and 54.8%, respectively), yet a significant proportion received opioids alone (AH: 24.3% and VHA: 18.8%). Combining acetaminophen with opioids was associated with decreased follow-up pain in VHA (Odds ratio [OR]: 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79, 0.93) and readmissions (AH OR: 0.74, CI: 0.60, 0.90; VHA OR: 0.89, CI: 0.82, 0.96). Further addition of nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs was associated with further decreased follow-up pain (AH OR: 0.71, CI: 0.53, 0.96; VHA OR: 0.77, CI: 0.69, 0.86) and readmissions (AH OR: 0.46, CI: 0.31, 0.69; VHA OR: 0.84, CI: 0.76, 0.93). In both systems, patients receiving multimodal analgesia received 10%-40% less opioids per day compared to opioids only. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of surgical patients receive a multimodal pain approach at discharge yet many receive only opioids. Multimodal regimen at discharge was associated with better follow-up pain and all-cause readmissions compared to the opioid-only regimen.

Risks of adverse events in colorectal patients: population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative (PO) outcomes are rapidly being integrated into value-based purchasing programs and associated penalties are slated for inclusion in the near future. Colorectal surgery procedures are extremely common and account for a high proportion of morbidity among general surgery. We sought to assess adverse events in colorectal surgical patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, 2008-2012. Patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes and classified based on procedure indication: colon cancer, benign polyps, diverticulitis, inflammatory bowel disease, and ischemic colitis. The outcome of interest was inpatient adverse event identified by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's patient safety indicators (PSIs). RESULTS: We identified 1,100,184 colorectal patients who underwent major surgery; 2.7% developed a PSI during their hospital stay. Compared to all colorectal patients, those with ischemic colitis had significantly higher risk-adjusted rates per 1000 case for pressure ulcer (50.20), failure to rescue (211.30), central line bloodstream infection (2.33) and PO DE/deep vein thrombosis (16.02), and sepsis (46.99), whereas benign polyps were associated with significantly lower risk-adjusted rates per 1000 cases for pressure ulcer (11.48), failure to rescue (84.79), central line bloodstream infection (0.97) and PO pulmonary embolism/deep vein thrombosis (4.81), and sepsis (11.23). Compared to both patient demographic and clinical characteristics, the procedure indication was the strongest predictor of any PSI relevant to colorectal surgery; patients with ischemic colitis had higher odds of experiencing a PSI (odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.71-1.99) compared with cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Among colorectal surgery patients, inpatient events were not uncommon. We found important differential rates of adverse events by diagnostic category, with the highest odds ratio occurring in patients undergoing surgery for ischemic colitis. Our work elaborates the need for rigorous risk adjustment, quality improvement strategies for high-risk populations, and attention to detail in calculating financial incentives in emerging value-based purchasing programs.

Patient safety in plastic surgery: identifying areas for quality improvement efforts.

Improving quality of health care is a global priority. Before quality benchmarks are established, we first must understand rates of adverse events (AEs). This project assessed risk-adjusted rates of inpatient AEs for soft tissue reconstructive procedures.Patients receiving soft tissue reconstructive procedures from 2005 to 2010 were extracted from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Inpatient AEs were identified using patient safety indicators (PSIs), established measures developed by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.We identified 409,991 patients with soft tissue reconstruction and 16,635 (4.06%) had a PSI during their hospital stay. Patient safety indicators were associated with increased risk-adjusted mortality, longer length of stay, and decreased routine disposition (P < 0.01). Patient characteristics associated with a higher risk-adjusted rate per 1000 patients at risk included older age, men, nonwhite, and public payer (P < 0.05). Overall, plastic surgery patients had significantly lower risk-adjusted rate compared to other surgical inpatients for all events evaluated except for failure to rescue and postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma, which were not statistically different. Risk-adjusted rates of hematoma hemorrhage were significantly higher in patients receiving size-reduction surgery, and these rates were further accentuated when broken down by sex and payer. In general, plastic surgery patients had lower rates of in-hospital AEs than other surgical disciplines, but PSIs were not uncommon. With the establishment of national basal PSI rates in plastic surgery patients, benchmarks can be devised and target areas for quality improvement efforts identified. Further prospective studies should be designed to elucidate the drivers of AEs identified in this population.

Simulation exercises as a patient safety strategy: a systematic review.

Simulation is a versatile technique used in a variety of health care settings for a variety of purposes, but the extent to which simulation may improve patient safety remains unknown. This systematic review examined evidence on the effects of simulation techniques on patient safety outcomes. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from their beginning to 31 October 2012 to identify relevant studies. A single reviewer screened 913 abstracts and selected and abstracted data from 38 studies that reported outcomes during care of real patients after patient-, team-, or system-level simulation interventions. Studies varied widely in the quality of methodological design and description of simulation activities, but in general, simulation interventions improved the technical performance of individual clinicians and teams during critical events and complex procedures. Limited evidence suggested improvements in patient outcomes attributable to simulation exercises at the health system level. Future studies would benefit from standardized reporting of simulation components and identification of robust patient safety targets.

Patient safety strategies targeted at diagnostic errors: a systematic review.

Missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis can lead to inappropriate patient care, poor patient outcomes, and increased cost. This systematic review analyzed evaluations of interventions to prevent diagnostic errors. Searches used MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Network, bibliographies, and prior systematic reviews. Studies that evaluated any intervention to decrease diagnostic errors in any clinical setting and with any study design were eligible, provided that they addressed a patient-related outcome. Two independent reviewers extracted study data and rated study quality. There were 109 studies that addressed 1 or more intervention categories: personnel changes (n = 6), educational interventions (n = 11), technique (n = 23), structured process changes (n = 27), technology-based systems interventions (n = 32), and review methods (n = 38). Of 14 randomized trials, which were rated as having mostly low to moderate risk of bias, 11 reported interventions that reduced diagnostic errors. Evidence seemed strongest for technology-based systems (for example, text message alerting) and specific techniques (for example, testing equipment adaptations). Studies provided no information on harms, cost, or contextual application of interventions. Overall, the review showed a growing field of diagnostic error research and categorized and identified promising interventions that warrant evaluation in large studies across diverse settings.

Typology of solutions addressing diagnostic disparities: gaps and opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic disparities are preventable differences in diagnostic errors or opportunities to achieve diagnostic excellence. There is a need to summarize solutions with explicit considerations for addressing diagnostic disparities. We aimed to describe potential solutions to diagnostic disparities, organize them into an action-oriented typology with illustrative examples, and characterize these solutions to identify gaps for their further development. METHODS: During four human-centered design workshops composed of diverse expertise, participants ideated and clarified potential solutions to diagnostic disparities and were supported by environmental literature scan inputs. Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews with workshop participants validated identified solution examples and solution type characterizations, refining the typology. RESULTS: Our typology organizes 21 various types of potential diagnostic disparities solutions into four primary expertise categories needed for implementation: healthcare systems' internal expertise, educator-, multidisciplinary patient safety researcher-, and health IT-expertise. We provide descriptions of potential solution types ideated as focused on disparities and compare those to existing examples. Six types were characterized as having diagnostic-disparity-focused examples, five as having diagnostic-focused examples, and 10 as only having general healthcare examples. Only three solution types had widespread implementation. Twelve had implementation on limited scope, and six were mostly hypothetical. We describe gaps that inform the progress needed for each of the suggested solution types to specifically address diagnostic disparities and be suitable for the implementation in routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous opportunities exist to tailor existing solutions and promote their implementation. Likely enablers include new perspectives, more evidence, multidisciplinary collaborations, system redesign, meaningful patient engagement, and action-oriented coalitions.

Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients' and care partners' perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy. METHODS: In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively. RESULTS: A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients' subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor's opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team's attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy. IMPLICATIONS: As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice. HIGHLIGHTS: An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care.In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have.We introduce "patient reasoning" in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health.

A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims). RESULTS: Among the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%). CONCLUSIONS: New measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life.

Limitations of using same-hospital readmission metrics.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the limitations associated with restricting readmission metrics to same-hospital only readmission. DESIGN: Using 2000-2009 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Data Nonpublic file, we identified the proportion of 7-, 15- and 30-day readmissions occurring to the same hospital as the initial admission using All-cause Readmission (ACR) and 3M Corporation Potentially Preventable Readmissions (PPR) Metric. We examined the correlation between performance using same and different hospital readmission, the percent of hospitals remaining in the extreme deciles when utilizing different metrics, agreement in identifying outliers and differences in longitudinal performance. Using logistic regression, we examined the factors associated with admission to the same hospital. RESULTS: 68% of 30-day ACR and 70% of 30-day PPR occurred to the same hospital. Abdominopelvic procedures had higher proportions of same-hospital readmissions (87.4-88.9%), cardiac surgery had lower (72.5-74.9%) and medical DRGs were lower than surgical DRGs (67.1 vs. 71.1%). Correlation and agreement in identifying high- and low-performing hospitals was weak to moderate, except for 7-day metrics where agreement was stronger (r = 0.23-0.80, Kappa = 0.38-0.76). Agreement for within-hospital significant (P < 0.05) longitudinal change was weak (Kappa = 0.05-0.11). Beyond all patient refined-diagnostic related groups, payer was the most predictive factor with Medicare and MediCal patients having a higher likelihood of same-hospital readmission (OR 1.62, 1.73). CONCLUSIONS: Same-hospital readmission metrics are limited for all tested applications. Caution should be used when conducting research, quality improvement or comparative applications that do not account for readmissions to other hospitals.