A Multi-site Case Study of Care Coordination Between Primary Care and Specialty Care.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is critical for patients with multiple chronic conditions, but fragmentation of care persists. Providers' perspectives of facilitators and barriers to coordination are needed to improve care. OBJECTIVES: We sought to understand providers' perspectives on care coordination for patients having multiple chronic diseases served by multiple providers. RESEARCH DESIGN: Based upon our earlier survey of patients with multiple chronic conditions, we selected 8 medical centers having high and low coordination. We interviewed providers to identify facilitators and barriers to coordination and compare them between patient-rated high sites and low sites and between primary care (PC)-mental health (MH) and PC-medical/surgical specialty care. SUBJECTS: Physicians, nurses and other clinicians in PC, cardiology, and MH (N=102) in 8 Veterans Affairs medical centers. RESULTS: We identified warm handoffs, professional relationships, and physical proximity as facilitators, and service agreements, reporting relationships and staffing as barriers. PC-MH coordination was reported as better than PC-medical/surgical specialty coordination. Facilitators were more prevalent and barriers less prevalent in sites rated high by patients than sites rated low, and between PC-MH than between PC-specialty care. DISCUSSION: We noted that professional relationships were highly related to coordination and both affected other facilitators and barriers and were affected by them. We suggested actions to improve relationships directly, and to address other facilitators and barriers that affect relationships and coordination. Among these is the use of the Primary Care Mental Health Integration model.

A Mixed Methods Study of the Association of Non-Veterans Affairs Care With Veterans' and Clinicians' Experiences of Care Coordination.

BACKGROUND: Poor coordination between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-VA care may negatively impact health care quality. Recent legislation is intended to increase Veterans' access to care, in part through increased use of non-VA care. However, a possible consequence may be diminished patient experiences of coordination. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine VA patients' and clinicians' experiences of coordination across VA and non-VA settings. DESIGN: Observational mixed methods using patient surveys and clinician interviews. Sampled patients were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus and either cardiovascular or mental health comorbidities. PARTICIPANTS AND MEASURES: Patient perspectives on coordination were elicited between April and September 2016 through a national survey supplemented with VA administrative records (N=5372). Coordination was measured with the 8-dimension Patient Perceptions of Integrated Care survey. Receipt of non-VA care was measured through patient self-report. Clinician perspectives were elicited through individual interviews (N=100) between May and October 2017. RESULTS: Veterans who received both VA and non-VA care reported significantly worse care coordination experiences than Veterans who only receive care in VA. Clinicians report limited information exchange capabilities, which, combined with bureaucratic and opaque procedures, adversely impact clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: VA is working through a shift in how Veterans receive health care by increasing access to care from non-VA providers. Study findings suggest that VA should prioritize coordination of care in addition to access. This could include requiring monitoring of patient-experienced care coordination, surveys of referring and consulting clinicians, and pilot testing and evaluation of interventions to improve coordination.

Multilevel interventions: measurement and measures.

BACKGROUND: Multilevel intervention research holds the promise of more accurately representing real-life situations and, thus, with proper research design and measurement approaches, facilitating effective and efficient resolution of health-care system challenges. However, taking a multilevel approach to cancer care interventions creates both measurement challenges and opportunities. METHODS: One-thousand seventy two cancer care articles from 2005 to 2010 were reviewed to examine the state of measurement in the multilevel intervention cancer care literature. Ultimately, 234 multilevel articles, 40 involving cancer care interventions, were identified. Additionally, literature from health services, social psychology, and organizational behavior was reviewed to identify measures that might be useful in multilevel intervention research. RESULTS: The vast majority of measures used in multilevel cancer intervention studies were individual level measures. Group-, organization-, and community-level measures were rarely used. Discussion of the independence, validity, and reliability of measures was scant. DISCUSSION: Measurement issues may be especially complex when conducting multilevel intervention research. Measurement considerations that are associated with multilevel intervention research include those related to independence, reliability, validity, sample size, and power. Furthermore, multilevel intervention research requires identification of key constructs and measures by level and consideration of interactions within and across levels. Thus, multilevel intervention research benefits from thoughtful theory-driven planning and design, an interdisciplinary approach, and mixed methods measurement and analysis.