Key factors in patient-centered care coordination in ambulatory care: Nurse care coordinators' perspectives

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine E. Vanderboom ◽  
Nona L. Thackeray ◽  
Lori M. Rhudy
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 8-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Séroussi ◽  
M.-C. Jaulent ◽  
C. U. Lehmann

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.


Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-33
Author(s):  
Srdan Verstovsek ◽  
Anne Jacobson ◽  
Jeffrey D Carter ◽  
Tamar Sapir

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e1441-e1450
Author(s):  
Manasi A. Tirodkar ◽  
Lindsey Roth ◽  
Shelley Fuld Nasso ◽  
Mark W. Friedberg ◽  
Sarah H. Scholle

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.


2008 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Souraya Sidani

The purposes of this study were to determine the extent to which acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) provide patient-centered care (PCC) and to explore the effects of PCC on patients’ functional status, self-care ability, and satisfaction with care. A nonexperimental design with repeated measures was used. The sample included 320 patients with acute medical and surgical conditions. Patients perceived that ACNPs provided PCC, operationalized as encouraging patients to participate in care and individualizing care to a moderate extent. Implementation of these PCC components was positively associated with some domains of self-care ability and satisfaction with care. Further investigation of the contribution of PCC to outcomes is recommended.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document