scholarly journals Perspectives in Primary Care: Implementing Patient-Centered Care Coordination for Individuals with Multiple Chronic Medical Conditions

2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (6) ◽  
pp. 500-503 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. A. Bayliss ◽  
B. A. Balasubramianian ◽  
J. M. Gill ◽  
K. C. Stange
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Chronic Medical Conditions ◽  
Medical Conditions ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care

scholarly journals Health Information Technology Challenges to Support Patient-Centered Care Coordination

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 8-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Séroussi ◽  
M.-C. Jaulent ◽  
C. U. Lehmann
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Health Information Technology ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Clinical Pathways ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
25Th Anniversary ◽  
Centered Care

Summary Objectives: To provide an editorial introduction to the 2015 IMIA Yearbook of Medical Informatics. Methods: We provide a brief overview of the 2015 special topic “Patient-Centered Care Coordination”, discuss the addition of two new sections to the Yearbook, Natural Language Processing and Public Health & Epidemiology Informatics, and present our editorial plans for the upcoming celebration of the 25th anniversary of the Yearbook. Results: Care delivery currently occurs through the processing of complex clinical pathways designed for increasingly multi-morbid patients by various practitioners in different settings. To avoid the consequences of the fragmentation of services, care should be organized to coordinate all providers, giving them the opportunity to share the same holistic view of the patient’s condition, and to be informed of the planned clinical pathway that establishes the roles and interventions of each one. The adoption and use of electronic health records (EHRs) is a solution to address health information sharing and care coordination challenges. However, while EHRs are necessary, they are not sufficient to achieve care coordination, creating information availability does not mean the information will be accessed. This edition of the Yearbook acknowledges the fact that health information technology (HIT), and EHRs in particular, are not yet fully addressing the challenges in care coordination. Emerging trends, tools, and applications of HIT to support care coordination are presented through the keynote paper, survey papers, and working group contributions. Conclusions: In 2015, the IMIA Yearbook has been extended to emphasize two fields of biomedical informatics through new sections. Next year, the 25th anniversary of the Yearbook will be celebrated in grand style! A special issue with a touch of reflection, a bit of rediscovery, and some “science-fiction” will be published in addition to the usual edition.

scholarly journals Facilitating Team-Based Care Coordination and Collaboration in Myelofibrosis: Findings from a Quality Improvement Study in Three US Community Oncology Systems

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Anne Jacobson ◽  
Jeffrey D Carter ◽  
Tamar Sapir
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Patient Education ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Practice Patterns ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Centered Care

Background Care coordination can be especially challenging in the setting of rare malignancies such as myelofibrosis (MF), where hematology/oncology teams have limited experience working together to implement rapidly evolving standards of care. In this quality improvement (QI) initiative, we assessed barriers to patient-centered MF care in 3 community oncology systems and conducted team-based audit-feedback (AF) sessions within each system to facilitate improved care coordination. Methods Between 1/2020 and 3/2020, 31 hematology/oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) completed surveys designed to characterize self-reported practice patterns, challenges, and barriers to collaborative MF care in 3 community oncology systems (Table 1). Building on findings from the team-based surveys, 39 HCPs from these centers participated in AF sessions to reflect on their own practice patterns and to prioritize areas for improved MF care delivery. Participants developed team-based action plans to overcome identified challenges, including barriers to effective risk stratification, care coordination, and shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with MF. Surveys conducted before and after the small-group AF sessions evaluated changes in participants' beliefs and confidence in delivering collaborative, patient-centered MF care. Results Team-Based Surveys: HCPs identified managing MF-associated anemia and other disease symptoms (42%), providing individualized care despite highly variable clinical presentations (29%), and developing institutional expertise despite low patient numbers (16%) as the most pressing challenges in MF care. For patients who are candidates for JAK inhibitor therapy, HCPs reported most commonly relying on current guidelines (71%) and clinical evidence (61%) to guide treatment selection. HCPs also considered drug safety/tolerability profiles (55%), personal or institutional experience (13%), and out-of-pocket costs for patients (13%); no participants (0%) reported incorporating patient preference into their decision-making. Teams were underutilizing SDM and patient-centered care resources; fewer than 50% reported providing tools to support adherence (48%), visual aids for patient education (47%), financial toxicity counseling (40%), resources for managing MF-related fatigue (36%), or counseling to reduce risk factors for CVD, bleeding, and thrombosis (26%). Small-Group AF Sessions: Across the 3 oncology centers, teams participating in the AF sessions (Table 1) shared a self-reported caseload of 97 patients with MF per month. HCPs reported a meaningful shift in beliefs regarding the importance of collaborative care: following the AF sessions, 100% of HCPs agreed or strongly agreed that collaboration across the extended oncology care team is essential for achieving MF treatment goals, an increase from 71% prior to the AF sessions (Figure 1). Participants also reported increased confidence in their ability to perform each of 6 aspects of evidence-based, collaborative, patient-centered care (Figure 2). In selecting which aspects of patient-centered care to address with their clinical teams, HCPs most commonly prioritized individualizing treatment decision-making based on patient- and disease-related factors (57%), followed by providing adequate patient education about treatment options and potential side effects (24%) and engaging patients in SDM (18%). To achieve these goals, 73% of HCPs committed to sharing their action plans with additional clinical team members; others committed to creating a quality task force to oversee action-plan implementation (15%) and securing buy-in from leadership and stakeholders (9%). Conclusions As a result of participating in this community-based QI initiative, hematology/oncology HCPs demonstrated increased confidence in their ability to deliver patient-centered MF care and improved commitment to team-based collaboration. Remaining practice gaps and challenges can inform future QI programs. Study Sponsor Statement The study reported in this abstract was funded by an independent educational grant from Incyte Corporation. The grantors had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting. Disclosures Verstovsek: ItalPharma: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding.

scholarly journals Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing a Patient-Centered Oncology Care Model

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e1441-e1450
Author(s):  
Manasi A. Tirodkar ◽  
Lindsey Roth ◽  
Shelley Fuld Nasso ◽  
Mark W. Friedberg ◽  
Sarah H. Scholle
Keyword(s):  
Care Coordination ◽  
Medical Home ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Technical Assistance ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Leadership Support ◽  
Centered Care

PURPOSE: Oncology practices often serve as the “medical home” for patients but may not have systems to support all aspects of patient-centered care. We piloted a new set of oncology medical home standards that call for accessible, continuous, coordinated, and team-based care. We examined how adoption of the standards varies across a variety of practices and compared practice self-report with external evaluation of implementation. METHODS: Five medical oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania implemented the standards from 2014 into 2016. Implementation support included training webinars and technical assistance. External reviewers evaluated practices’ implementation of the standards. We conducted site visits to interview providers and patients. RESULTS: Between baseline and follow-up, practice self-assessments and independent audits showed practices increased implementation of the patient-centered oncology standards. The largest improvement was seen in continuous quality improvement (QI). Practices were less successful in implementing care coordination: achievement on two standards (access and evidence-based decision support) declined from baseline to follow-up. Qualitative analyses revealed that practices focused QI in five areas: goals of care, engaging patients in QI, financial counseling, symptom management, and care coordination. Interviewees talked about facilitators, such as leadership support and physician buy-in, and barriers to transformation, including inadequate resources and staffing. Health information technology both supported and limited implementation. CONCLUSION: Oncology practices showed some progress in their implementation of patient-centered care processes over the course of the pilot program. Systems for tracking and documenting improvement, training for staff and clinicians, leadership support, and alignment of financial incentives are critical to transformation.

scholarly journals Soldier-Centered Care: A Concept Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 185 (3-4) ◽  
pp. e422-e430
Author(s):  
Tanekkia M Taylor-Clark ◽  
Patricia A Patrician
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Concept Analysis ◽  
Medical Department ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Medical Needs ◽  
Leadership Support ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
The U.S

Abstract Introduction It is critical for the U.S. Army Medical Department to acknowledge the distinctive medical needs of soldiers and conceptualize soldier-centered care as a unique concept. In addition to the nationally recognized standards of patient-centered care, soldier-centered care includes provisions for the priorities of soldier health and wellness, injury prevention, illness and injury management, and the preservation of physical performance and medical readiness. The development of soldier-centered care as a distinctive concept may strengthen the evidence base for interventions that support improvements to soldier care and thus, enhance health outcomes specific to soldiers. The purpose of this article is to analyze the concept of soldier-centered care, clarify the meaning of soldier-centered care, and propose a theoretical definition. Methods Rodgers’ evolutionary concept analysis method was used to search and analyze the literature for related terms, attributes, antecedents, and consequences and to create a theoretical definition for soldier-centered care. Results The results of this concept analysis indicated that soldier-centered care is realized through the presence of nine attributes: operational alignment of care, provider and support staff therapeutic competence, management of transitions and care coordination, technology and accessibility, management of limited and lost work days, trust and expectation management, leadership support, continuity, and access to care. Soldier-centered care is focused on health and wellness promotion, disease and injury prevention, and early diagnosis and treatment of acute injuries in the primary care setting to facilitate timely injury recovery, reduce reinjury, and prevent long-term disabilities. The result of soldier-centered care is enhanced physical performance, medical readiness, and deployability for soldiers. Based on the literature analysis, the following theoretical definition of soldier-centered care is proposed: Soldier-centered care is individualized, comprehensive healthcare tailored to the soldier’s unique medical needs delivered by a care team of competent primary care providers and support staff who prioritize trust and expectation management, operational alignment of care, leadership support, care coordination, and the management of limited and lost workdays through the use of evidence-based practice approaches that employ innovative information technology to balance access to care and continuity. Conclusions The concept of soldier-centered care often emerges in discussions about optimal physical performance and medical readiness for soldiers. Although soldier-centered care and patient-centered care have similar conceptual underpinning, it is important to clarify the unique physical and medical requirements for soldiers that differentiate soldier-centered care from patient-centered care. Implementing the defining attributes of soldier-centered care in the U.S. Army primary care setting may improve the quality of care and health outcomes for soldiers. When defining performance metrics for primary care models of care, the U.S. Army Medical Department must consider assessing outcomes specific to the soldier population. Developing empirical indicators for the attributes of soldier-centered care will support meaningful testing of the concept.

Patient-centered care and communication in primary care practice: what is involved?

2005 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 296-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Virginia Aita ◽  
Helen McIlvain ◽  
Elisabeth Backer ◽  
Kristine McVea ◽  
Benjamin Crabtree
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Practice ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care

scholarly journals Relationship Between Adolescent Report of Patient-Centered Care and of Quality of Primary Care

2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (8) ◽  
pp. 770-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara L. Toomey ◽  
Marc N. Elliott ◽  
David C. Schwebel ◽  
Susan R. Tortolero ◽  
Paula M. Cuccaro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Adolescent Report ◽  
Quality Of Primary Care ◽  
Centered Care
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document