Patient selection strategies in an intensive primary care program

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation Pub Date : 2022-06-01 DOI:10.1016/j.hjdsi.2022.100627
Elizabeth Hulen , Avery Z. Laliberte , Marian L. Katz , Karleen F. Giannitrapani , Evelyn T. Chang , Susan E. Stockdale , Jessica A. Eng , Elvira Jimenez , Samuel T. Edwards
{"title":"Patient selection strategies in an intensive primary care program","authors":"Elizabeth Hulen ,&nbsp;Avery Z. Laliberte ,&nbsp;Marian L. Katz ,&nbsp;Karleen F. Giannitrapani ,&nbsp;Evelyn T. Chang ,&nbsp;Susan E. Stockdale ,&nbsp;Jessica A. Eng ,&nbsp;Elvira Jimenez ,&nbsp;Samuel T. Edwards","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2022.100627","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"10 2","pages":"Article 100627"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076422000161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Background

Intensive primary care programs have had variable impacts on clinical outcomes, possibly due to a lack of consensus on appropriate patient-selection. The US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) piloted an intensive primary care program, known as Patient Aligned Care Team Intensive Management (PIM), in five medical centers. We sought to describe the PIM patient selection process used by PIM teams and to explore perspectives of PIM team members regarding how patient selection processes functioned in context.

Methods

This study employs an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design. We analyzed qualitative interviews with 21 PIM team and facility leaders and electronic health record (EHR) data from 2,061 patients screened between July 2014 and September 2017 for PIM enrollment. Qualitative data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

Of 1,887 patients identified for PIM services using standardized criteria, over half were deemed inappropriate for PIM services, either because of not having an ambulatory care sensitive condition, living situation, or were already receiving recommended care. Qualitative analysis found that team members considered standardized criteria to be a useful starting point but too broad to be relied on exclusively. Additional data collection through chart review and communication with the current primary care team was needed to adequately assess patient complexity. Qualitative analysis further found that differences in conceptualizing program goals led to conflicting opinions of which patients should be enrolled in PIM.

Conclusions

A combined approach that includes clinical judgment, case review, standardized criteria, and targeted program goals are all needed to support appropriate patient selection processes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症初级保健项目中的患者选择策略
背景:密集的初级保健计划对临床结果有不同的影响,可能是由于在适当的患者选择上缺乏共识。美国退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)在五个医疗中心试点了一项名为“患者联合护理团队强化管理”(PIM)的强化初级保健计划。我们试图描述PIM团队使用的PIM患者选择过程,并探索PIM团队成员关于患者选择过程如何在上下文中起作用的观点。方法本研究采用探索性顺序混合方法设计。我们分析了对21名PIM团队和设施负责人的定性访谈,以及2014年7月至2017年9月期间为PIM登记筛选的2061名患者的电子健康记录(EHR)数据。定性数据分析采用混合归纳/演绎方法。定量资料采用描述性统计进行分析。结果使用标准化标准确定的1887例PIM服务患者中,超过一半的患者被认为不适合PIM服务,要么是因为没有门诊护理敏感条件、生活状况,要么已经接受了推荐的护理。定性分析发现,团队成员认为标准化标准是一个有用的起点,但过于宽泛,不能完全依赖。需要通过图表审查和与当前初级保健团队的沟通来收集额外的数据,以充分评估患者的复杂性。定性分析进一步发现,对项目目标概念化的差异导致了对哪些患者应该参加PIM的意见冲突。结论临床判断、病例回顾、标准化标准和有针对性的项目目标都需要综合方法来支持适当的患者选择过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology. The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as: ● Care redesign ● Applied health IT ● Payment innovation ● Managerial innovation ● Quality improvement (QI) research ● New training and education models ● Comparative delivery innovation
期刊最新文献
Corrigendum to "Reading the crystal ball: Primary care implications while awaiting outcomes for multi-cancer early detection tests" [Healthcare 11 (2023) 100705]. The national ambulatory medical care survey (NAMCS) at fifty: Past and future Implementation and adaptation of clinical quality improvement opioid measures Association between patient-reported financial burden and catastrophic health expenditures in cancer survivors Outpatient remdesivir treatment program for hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-2019: Patient perceptions, process and economic impact
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1