Care Coordination (care + coordination)

Distribution by Scientific Domains

Selected Abstracts

Setting Eligibility Criteria for a Care-Coordination Benefit

Christine T. Cigolle MD
Objectives: To examine different clinically relevant eligibility criteria sets to determine how they differ in numbers and characteristics of individuals served. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of the 2000 wave of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative longitudinal health interview survey of adults aged 50 and older. Setting: Population-based cohort of community-dwelling older adults, subset of an ongoing longitudinal health interview survey. Participants: Adults aged 65 and older who were respondents in the 2000 wave of the HRS (n=10,640, representing approximately 33.6 million Medicare beneficiaries). Measurements: Three clinical criteria sets were examined that included different combinations of medical conditions, cognitive impairment, and activity of daily living/instrumental activity of daily living (ADL/IADL) dependency. Results: A small portion of Medicare beneficiaries (1.3,5.8%) would be eligible for care coordination, depending on the criteria set chosen. A criteria set recently proposed by Congress (at least four severe complex medical conditions and one ADL or IADL dependency) would apply to 427,000 adults aged 65 and older in the United States. Criteria emphasizing cognitive impairment would serve an older population. Conclusion: Several criteria sets for a Medicare care-coordination benefit are clinically reasonable, but different definitions of eligibility would serve different numbers and population groups of older adults. [source]

Using Electronic Health Records to Help Coordinate Care

The use of electronic health records that can securely transmit patient data among physicians will help coordinate the care of 60 million Americans with multiple chronic conditions. This article summarizes the different organizations in the United States that are developing this technology. It discusses some of the problems encountered and the current initiatives to resolve them. The article concludes with three recommendations for enhancing care coordination: (1) a common health record, such as the Continuity of Care Record, to facilitate the exchange of clinical information among health providers; (2) regional governance structures to encourage the exchange of clinical data; and (3) payment by purchasers of care, both public and private, to physicians for using electronic health records. [source]

Mentoring in the management of hematological malignancies

Abstract Aim: The Mentoring in Management of Haematological Malignancies (MMHM) project aimed to improve treatment outcomes, coordinate care and provide best practice for patients with hematological cancers, by developing a program of mentoring and multidisciplinary care between a regional and a metropolitan centre. Methods: A regular multidisciplinary meeting conducted by teleconference was established between a tertiary metropolitan site and a regional practice to discuss cases of patients with hematological malignancies. Information from multidisciplinary team meetings was recorded to capture adherence to process and clinician outcomes. An educational program was developed. A gap analysis was performed to identify differences in routine practice between the two centers. Clinician satisfaction with mentoring and educational interventions was assessed by structured survey. Results: The MMHM project developed a formal mentoring system to improve the management of patients by building on established links and developing an innovative model of web-based multidisciplinary care. The project established a novel multidisciplinary meeting between a metropolitan and regional site. Common treatment policies were adopted between the two sites. Development of an educational framework and mentoring for health-care professionals in regional areas was achieved by tutorials and workshops. Most participating clinicians indicated their high level of satisfaction with the mentoring project. Conclusion: The MMHM project was a successful pilot of a mentoring program in hematological cancers between metropolitan and regional centers that resulted in improved referral links, facilitated better care coordination, updated treatment policies and guidelines and increased clinician satisfaction and knowledge. [source]

Co-morbid drug and alcohol and mental health issues in a rural New South Wales Area Health Service

Bryan Hoolahan
Abstract Objective:,In 2003 the New South Wales (NSW) Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health (CRRMH) conducted an analysis of co-morbid drug and alcohol (D&A) and mental health issues for service providers and consumers in a rural NSW Area Health Service. This paper will discuss concerns raised by rural service providers and consumers regarding the care of people with co-morbid D&A and mental health disorders. Design:,Current literature on co-morbidity was reviewed, and local area clinical data were examined to estimate the prevalence of D&A disorders within the mental health service. Focus groups were held with service providers and consumer support groups regarding strengths and gaps in service provision. Setting:,A rural Area Health Service in NSW. Participants:,Rural health and welfare service providers, consumers with co-morbid D&A and mental health disorders. Results:,Data for the rural area showed that 43% of inpatient and 20% of ambulatory mental health admissions had problem drinking or drug-taking. Information gathered from the focus groups indicated a reasonable level of awareness of co-morbidity, and change underway to better meet client needs; however, the results indicated a lack of formalised care coordination, unclear treatment pathways, and a lack of specialist care and resources. Discussion:,Significant gaps in the provision of appropriate care for people with co-morbid D&A and mental health disorders were identified. Allocation of service responsibly for these clients was unclear. It is recommended that D&A, mental health and primary care services collaborate to address the needs of clients so that a coordinated and systematic approach to co-morbid care can be provided. [source]

Design and implementation of a randomized trial evaluating systematic care for bipolar disorder

Gregory E Simon
Objectives: Everyday care of bipolar disorder typically falls short of evidence-based practice. This report describes the design and implementation of a randomized trial evaluating a systematic program to improve quality and continuity of care for bipolar disorder. Methods: Computerized records of a large health plan were used to identify all patients treated for bipolar disorder. Following a baseline diagnostic assessment, eligible and consenting patients were randomly assigned to either continued usual care or a multifaceted intervention program including: development of a collaborative treatment plan, monthly telephone monitoring by a dedicated nurse care manager, feedback of monitoring results and algorithm-based medication recommendations to treating mental health providers, as-needed outreach and care coordination, and a structured psychoeducational group program (the Life Goals Program by Bauer and McBride) delivered by the nurse care manager. Blinded assessments of clinical outcomes, functional outcomes, and treatment process were conducted every 3 months for 24 months. Results: A total of 441 patients (64% of those eligible) consented to participate and 43% of enrolled patients met criteria for current major depressive episode, manic episode, or hypomanic episode. An additional 39% reported significant subthreshold symptoms, and 18% reported minimal or no current mood symptoms. Of patients assigned to the intervention program, 94% participated in telephone monitoring and 70% attended at least one group session. Conclusions: In a population-based sample of patients treated for bipolar disorder, approximately two-thirds agreed to participate in a randomized trial comparing alternative treatment strategies. Nearly all patients accepted regular telephone monitoring and over two-thirds joined a structured group program. Future reports will describe clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention program compared with usual care. [source]

Executive Summary: The Institute of Medicine Report and the Future of Academic Emergency Medicine: The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine Panel: Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Meeting, October 28, 2006

Daniel A. Handel MD
The findings in the Institute of Medicine's Future of Emergency Care reports, released in June 2006, emphasize that emergency physicians work in a fragmented system of emergency care with limited interhospital and out-of-hospital care coordination, too few on-call specialists, minimal disaster readiness, strained inpatient resources, and inadequate pediatric emergency services. Areas warranting special attention at academic medical centers (AMCs), both those included within the report and others warranting further attention, were reviewed by a distinguished panel and include the following: 1) opportunities to strengthen and leverage the educational environment within the AMC emergency department; 2) research opportunities created by emergency medicine (EM) serving as an interdisciplinary bridge in the area of clinical and translational research; 3) enhancement of federal guidelines for observational and interventional emergency care research; 4) recognition of the importance of EM residency training, the role of academic departments of EM, and EM subspecialty development in critical care medicine and out-of-hospital and disaster medicine; 5) further assessment of the impact of a regional emergency care model on patient outcomes and exploration of the role of AMCs in the development of such a model (e.g., geriatric and pediatric centers of EM excellence); 6) t e opportunity to use educational loan forgiveness to encourage rural EM practice and the development of innovative EM educational programs linked to rural hospitals; and 7) the need to address AMC emergency department crowding and its adverse effect on quality of care and patient safety. Strategic plans should be developed on a local level in conjunction with support from national EM organizations, allied health care, specialty organizations, and consumer groups to help implement the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine report. The report recommendations and other related recommendations brought forward during the panel discussions should be addressed through innovative programs and policy development at the regional and federal levels. [source]