Search

Background: Patient complexity is often operationalized by counting multiple chronic conditions (MCC) without considering contextual factors that can affect patient risk for adverse outcomes.Objective: Our objective was to develop a conceptual model of complexity addressing gaps identified in a review of published conceptual models.Data Sources: We searched for English-language MEDLINE papers published between 1 January 2004 and 16 January 2014. Two reviewers independently evaluated abstracts and all authors contributed to the development of the conceptual model in an iterative process.Results: From 1606 identified abstracts, six conceptual models were selected. One additional model was identified through reference review. Each model had strengths, but several constructs were not fully considered: 1) contextual factors; 2) dynamics of complexity; 3) patients' preferences; 4) acute health shocks; and 5) resilience. Our Cycle of Complexity model illustrates relationships between acute shocks and medical events, healthcare access and utilization, workload and capacity, and patient preferences in the context of interpersonal, organizational, and community factors.Conclusions/implications: This model may inform studies on the etiology of and changes in complexity, the relationship between complexity and patient outcomes, and intervention development to improve modifiable elements of complex patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic disease patients who are the greatest users of healthcare services are often referred to as high-need, high-cost (HNHC). Payers, providers, and policymakers in the United States are interested in identifying interventions that can modify or reduce preventable healthcare use among these patients, without adversely impacting their quality of care and health. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the effectiveness of complex interventions designed to change the healthcare of HNHC patients, modifying cost and utilization, as well as clinical/functional, and social risk factor outcomes. Methods: We searched 8 electronic databases (January 2000 to March 2021) and selected non-profit organization and government agency websites for randomized controlled trials and observational studies with comparison groups that targeted HNHC patients. Two investigators independently screened each study and abstracted data into structured forms. Study quality was assessed using standard risk of bias tools. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes reported by at least 3 comparable samples. Results: Forty studies met our inclusion criteria. Interventions were heterogenous and classified into 7 categories, reflecting the predominant service location/modality (home, primary care, ambulatory intensive caring unit [aICU], emergency department [ED], community, telephonic/mail, and system-level). Home-, primary care-, and ED-based interventions resulted in reductions in high-cost healthcare services (ED and hospital use). ED-based interventions also resulted in greater use of primary care. Primary care- and ED-based interventions reduced costs. System-level transformation interventions did not reduce costs. Discussion: We found limited evidence of intervention effectiveness in relation to cost and use, and additional evidence is needed to strengthen our confidence in the findings. Few studies reported patient clinical/functional or social risk factor outcomes (e.g., homelessness) or sufficient details for determining why individual interventions work, for whom, and when. Future evaluations could provide additional insights, by including intermediate process outcomes and patients' experiences, in assessing the impact of these complex interventions. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42020161179 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Engaging patients as partners can influence research, with rewards and deterrents. The authors are researchers and patient co-investigators who collaborated on a comparative effectiveness, randomized controlled study of a structured quality improvement (QI) process to improve behavioral health and primary care integration for people managing multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Patient co-investigators responded to a gap in available resources to support study clinics in partnering with their own patients in QI and co-created the Patient Partner Guide (PPG). Objective: Describe the development of the PPG, its use by clinics undertaking the QI project, and research team partnerships. Design: Observational report of study intervention component. Participants: Diverse patients and family members managing MCC and members of their primary care clinics. Intervention: The PPG component of the study intervention is a five-step workbook providing practical tools and resources to sustain partnerships across clinic QI team members, including patient partners. The process of developing the PPG relied on relationship-building tools that were iteratively assessed, practiced, improved, and incorporated into the PPG under the leadership of patient co-investigators. Main Measures: Observations related to PPG use and patient partner inclusion in clinic QI; impact on the research team. Key Results: Of 20 clinics, 6 engaged patients as full partners on QI teams. Clinics found resistance in partnering and challenges in using the PPG but valued the material and their partners' contributions. Similarly, engagement of patient co-investigators in research brought a shift in perspective to team members. The PPG is available and was adapted for use by research teams. Conclusions: Engagement of patients and other stakeholders in research can be transformative and productive. Building relationships through meaningful work benefits others, and in turn, the research process. This approach can enhance clinical care QI and may result in substantial contributions to the conduct of research. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02868983 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a leading cause of healthcare morbidity, utilization, and expenditures nationally, and caring for late-stage CKD populations is complex. Improving health system efficiency could mitigate these outcomes and, in the COVID-19 era, reduce risks of viral exposure.Objective: As part of a system-wide transformation to improve healthcare value among populations with high healthcare utilization and morbidity, UCLA Health evaluated a new patient-centered approach that we hypothesized would reduce inpatient utilization for CKD patients.Design: For 18 months in 2015-2016 and 12 months in 2017, we conducted an interrupted time series regression analysis to evaluate the intervention's impact on inpatient utilization. We used internal electronic health records and claims data across six payers.Participants: A total of 1442 stage 4-5 CKD patients at a large academic medical center.Intervention: Between October and December 2016, the organization implemented a Population Health Value CKD intervention for the CKD stages 4-5 population. A multispecialty leadership team risk stratified the population and identified improvement opportunities, redesigned multispecialty care coordination pathways across settings, and developed greater ambulatory infrastructure to support care needs.Main Measures: Outcomes included utilization of hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient bed days, and 30-day all-cause readmissions.Key Results: During the 12 months following intervention implementation, the monthly estimated rate of decline for hospitalizations was 5.4% (95% CI: 3.4-7.4%), which was 3.4 percentage points faster than the 18-month pre-intervention decline of 2.0% (95% CI: 1.0-2.2%) per month (p = 0.004). Medicare CKD patients' monthly ED visit rate of decline was 3.0% (95% CI: 1.2-4.8%) after intervention, which was 2.6 percentage points faster than the pre-intervention decline of 0.4% (95% CI: - 0.8 to 1.6%) per month (p = 0.02).Conclusions: By creating care pathways that link primary and specialty care teams across settings with increased ambulatory infrastructure, healthcare systems have potential to reduce inpatient healthcare utilization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is widely prevalent, associated with morbidity and mortality, but may be lessened with timely implementation of evidence-based strategies including blood pressure (BP) control. Nonetheless, an evidence-practice gap persists. We synthesize the evidence for clinician-facing interventions to improve hypertension management in CKD patients in primary care. Methods: Electronic databases and related publications were queried for relevant studies. We used a conceptual model to address heterogeneity of interventions. We conducted a quantitative synthesis of interventions on blood pressure (BP) outcomes and a narrative synthesis of other CKD relevant clinical outcomes. Planned subgroup analyses were performed by (1) study design (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized studies (NRS)); (2) intervention type (guideline-concordant decision support, shared care, pharmacist-facing); and (3) use of behavioral/implementation theory. Results: Of 2704 manuscripts screened, 73 underwent full-text review; 22 met inclusion criteria. BP target achievement was reported in 15 and systolic BP reduction in 6 studies. Among RCTs, all interventions had a significant effect on BP control, (pooled OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38). Subgroup analysis by intervention type showed significant effects for guideline-concordant decision support (pooled OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.27) but not shared care (pooled OR 1.71; 95% CI 0.96 to 3.03) or pharmacist-facing interventions (pooled OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.34). Subgroup analysis finding was replicated with pooling of RCTs and NRS. The five contributing studies showed large and significant reduction in systolic BP (pooled WMD − 3.86; 95% CI − 7.2 to − 0.55). Use of a behavioral/implementation theory had no impact, while RCTs showed smaller effect sizes than NRS. Discussion: Process-oriented implementation strategies used with guideline-concordant decision support was a promising implementation approach. Better reporting guidelines on implementation would enable more useful synthesis of the efficacy of CKD clinical interventions integrated into primary care. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42018102441 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A patient's self-management of chronic disease is influenced in part by their explanatory model of illness (EMI) and daily lived experiences (DLE). Unfortunately, assessing patient's EMI and using this information to engage patients in chronic illness self-management continues to be a challenge.Objective: "Health mind mapping" (HMM) is a novel process that captures a patient's EMI and DLE through the use of a graphic representation of ideas. We aimed to explore patient's experiences using HMM.Design: Qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews.Participants: Adult patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes from a primary care clinic.Approach: A facilitator guided 20 participants through the process of developing a health mind map. Subsequently, each participant completed a semi-structured interview about their experience with the process and perceptions about how their maps could be used. The process and interviews were video and audio recorded. We conducted a content analysis of the maps and a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach, of the interview data.Results: Participants explored a wide range of EMs and DLEs in their HMM process. Participants reported that the HMM process (1) helped to develop insight about self and illness; (2) was a catalyst for wanting to take actions to improve illness; and (3) represented an opportunity to actively share illness experiences. They reported potential uses of the map: (1) to communicate about their illness to others in their social network; (2) to communicate about their illness to providers; (3) to help others with diabetes manage their illness; and (4) to encourage ongoing engagement in diabetes self-care.Conclusions: Participants reported that HMM helped them develop new insight about their illness and was a catalyst for encouraging them to take control of their illness. HMM has the potential to facilitate communication with providers and engage patients in collaborative goal setting to improve self-care in chronic illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Discrimination in health care settings is associated with poor health outcomes and may be especially harmful to individuals with chronic conditions, who need ongoing clinical care. Although efforts to reduce discrimination are growing, little is known about national trends in discrimination in health care settings.Methods: For Black, White, and Hispanic respondents with chronic disease in the 2008-2014 Health and Retirement Study (N = 13,897 individuals and 21,078 reports), we evaluated trends in patient-reported discrimination, defined based on frequency of receiving poorer service or treatment than other people from doctors or hospitals ("never" vs. all other). Respondents also reported the perceived reason for the discrimination. In addition, we evaluated whether wealth predicted lower prevalence of discrimination for Blacks or Whites. We used generalized estimating equation models to account for dependency of repeated measures on individuals and wave-specific weights to represent the US non-institutionalized population aged 54+ .Results: The estimated prevalence of experiencing discrimination in health care among Blacks with a major chronic condition was 27% (95% CI: 23, 30) in 2008 and declined to 20% (95% CI: 17, 22) in 2014. Reports of receiving poorer service or treatment were stable for Whites (17%, 95% CI: 16, 19 in 2014). The Black-White difference in reporting any health care discrimination declined from 8.2% (95% CI: 4.5, 12.0) in 2008 to 2.5% (95% CI: -1.1, 6.0) in 2014. There was no clear trend for Hispanics. Blacks reported race and Whites reported age as the most common reason for discrimination.Conclusions: Findings suggest national declines in patient-reported discrimination in health care among Blacks with chronic conditions from 2008 to 2014, although reports of discrimination remain common for all racial/ethnic groups. Our results highlight the critical importance of monitoring trends in reports of discrimination in health care to advance equity in health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lack of timely medication intensification and inadequate medication safety monitoring are two prevalent and potentially modifiable barriers to effective and safe chronic care. Innovative applications of health information technology tools may help support chronic disease management. Objective: To examine the clinical impact of a novel health IT tool designed to facilitate between-visit ordering and tracking of future laboratory testing. Design and Participants: Clinical trial randomized at the provider level (n = 44 primary care physicians); patient-level outcomes among 3,655 primary care patients prescribed 5,454 oral medicines for hyperlipidemia, diabetes, and/or hypertension management over a 12-month period. Main Measures: Time from prescription to corresponding follow-up laboratory testing; proportion of follow-up time that patients achieved corresponding risk factor control (A1c, LDL); adverse event laboratory monitoring 4 weeks after medicine prescription. Key Results: Patients whose physicians were allocated to the intervention (n = 1,143) had earlier LDL laboratory assessment compared to similar patients (n = 703) of control physicians [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.15 (1.01-1.32), p = 0.04]. Among patients with elevated LDL (486 intervention, 324 control), there was decreased time to LDL goal in the intervention group [aHR 1.26 (0.99-1.62)]. However, overall there were no significant differences between study arms in time spent at LDL or HbA1c goal. Follow-up safety monitoring (e.g., creatinine, potassium, or transaminases) was relatively infrequent (ranging from 7 % to 29 % at 4 weeks) and not statistically different between arms. Intervention physicians indicated that lack of reimbursement for non-visit-based care was a barrier to use of the tool. Conclusions: A health IT tool to support between-visit laboratory monitoring improved the LDL testing interval but not LDL or HbA1c control, and it did not alter safety monitoring. Adoption of innovative tools to support physicians in non-visit-based chronic disease management may be limited by current visit-based financial and productivity incentives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As an increasing number of patients with chronic conditions of childhood survive to adulthood, experts recommend that young adults with chronic conditions transfer from child-focused to adult-focused primary care. Little, however, is known about how comfortable physicians are caring for this population.Objectives: To assess the comfort of general internists and general pediatricians in treating young adult patients with chronic illnesses originating in childhood as well as the factors associated with comfort.Participants: In a random sample, 1288 of 2434 eligible US general internists and pediatricians completed a mailed survey (response rate = 53%).Methods: We measured respondents' comfort level in providing primary care for a patient with sickle cell disease (SCD) or cystic fibrosis (CF). We also measured levels of disease familiarity, training and subspecialty support, as well as individual physician characteristics.Results: Fifteen percent of general internists reported being comfortable as the primary care provider for adults with CF and 32% reported being comfortable providing primary care for adults with SCD, compared with 38% of pediatricians for CF (p < .001) and 35% for SCD (p > 0.05). Less than half of general internists felt that their specialty should take primary care responsibility for adult patients with CF and SCD.Conclusions: A majority of general internists and pediatricians are not comfortable providing primary care for young adults with chronic illnesses of childhood origin, such as CF and SCD. Efforts to increase treatment comfort among providers may help with the transition to adult-focused care for the growing numbers of young adults with complex chronic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Persons with multiple chronic conditions are a large and growing segment of the US population. However, little is known about how chronic conditions cluster, and the ramifications of having specific combinations of chronic conditions. Clinical guidelines and disease management programs focus on single conditions, and clinical research often excludes persons with multiple chronic conditions. Understanding how conditions in combination impact the burden of disease and the costs and quality of care received is critical to improving care for the 1 in 5 Americans with multiple chronic conditions. This Medline review of publications examining somatic chronic conditions co-occurring with 1 or more additional specific chronic illness between January 2000 and March 2007 summarizes the state of our understanding of the prevalence and health challenges of multiple chronic conditions and the implications for quality, care management, and costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]