scholarly journals Mobile Applications for Patient-centered Care Coordination: A Review of Human Factors Methods Applied to their Design, Development, and Evaluation

2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (01) ◽  
pp. 47-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. I. Westbrook ◽  
M. T. Baysari
Keyword(s):  
Human Factors ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Care Coordination ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Design Development ◽  
Or Education ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
The Impact

Summary Objectives: To examine if human factors methods were applied in the design, development, and evaluation of mobile applications developed to facilitate aspects of patient-centered care coordination. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE (2013-2014) for studies describing the design or the evaluation of a mobile health application that aimed to support patients’ active involvement in the coordination of their care. Results: 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. Applications ranged from tools that supported self-management of specific conditions (e.g. asthma) to tools that provided coaching or education. Twelve of the 15 papers describing the design or development of an app reported the use of a human factors approach. The most frequently used methods were interviews and surveys, which often included an exploration of participants’ current use of information technology. Sixteen papers described the evaluation of a patient application in practice. All of them adopted a human factors approach, typically an examination of the use of app features and/or surveys or interviews which enquired about patients’ views of the effects of using the app on their behaviors (e.g. medication adherence), knowledge, and relationships with healthcare providers. No study in our review assessed the impact of mobile applications on health outcomes. Conclusion: The potential of mobile health applications to assist patients to more actively engage in the management of their care has resulted in a large number of applications being developed. Our review showed that human factors approaches are nearly always adopted to some extent in the design, development, and evaluation of mobile applications.

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 A Multilevel Study of Patient-Centered Care Perceptions In Mental Health Teams

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francois Durand ◽  
Marie-Josée Fleury
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Interprofessional Collaboration ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Teams ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Team Processes ◽  
Interprofessional Care ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background: The combination of interprofessional collaboration in teams and patient-centered care is a necessary amalgamation when it comes to delivering complex mental healthy care and services. Yet collaboration is challenging and patient-centered care is intricate to manage. This study examines the impact of predictors of patient-centered care such as team adaptivity and proactivity, collaboration, belief in interprofessional collaboration, informal role self-efficacy in multidisciplinary mental health teams.Method: Cross-sectional multilevel design using self-administered bilingual validated questionnaires.Results: This study showed that belief in interprofessional collaboration’s impact on patient-centered perceptions is increased in teams with high collaboration. We also showed that collaboration is a mediator; that is, a process by which team adaptive and proactive behaviors are transformed into positive patient-centered perceptions.Conclusions: In terms of research our results are in line with recent theorising on team processes and specifically established collaboration as key in a multilevel examination of predictors of patient-centered care perceptions. In terms of practice, we showed that multidisciplinary teams should know that working hard on collaboration as an answer to the complexity of patient-centered care impacts the teams’ ability to respond to its challenges but also impacts individuals’ beliefs central to the delivery of interprofessional care.

Baseline evaluation of the patient-centered oncology care model.

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 50-50
Author(s):  
Manasi A. Tirodkar ◽  
Sarah Hudson Scholle
Keyword(s):  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Coordinated Care ◽  
Motivation To Change ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Way

50 Background: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of care is being widely adopted as a way to provide accessible, proactive, coordinated care and self-care through primary care practices. During active treatment for cancer, the oncology practice is often the primary setting supporting the patient and coordinating cancer treatment. For this project, we are implementing a Patient-centered Oncology Care model in five oncology practices and evaluating the impact on cost, quality, and patient experiences. Methods: To determine the structures and processes present in the practices at baseline, we conducted a self-assessment on the standards, followed with an on-site “audit” for compliance with the standards. To get a sense for organizational culture and motivation to change, we conducted site visits which included interviews with providers, staff and patients and observation of clinical encounters and workflow. Results: Among the highest priority structures and processes, the most common were telephone triage, symptom management, advance care planning, and the use of evidence-based guidelines. The least common were patient/family orientation, availability of same day appointments, discussion and documentation of goals of therapy, symptom assessment, and tracking of appointments. All of the practices had made patient-centered care a priority and staff were motivated to change. There was variation in the way providers and the care team used health information technology during clinical workflow. There was also variation in which staff coordinated care for patients and whether or not financial counseling was offered. All of the practices stated that they needed to work on implementing survivorship care planning, shared decision-making, and patient engagement in quality improvement and practice transformation Conclusions: The pilot oncology practices have many structures and processes in common. However, there is little standardization within practices in the way these processes are established and documented. Practices vary in how they are implementing patient-centered care processes. However, with motivation to change, staff and providers are actively engaged in the transformation process.

scholarly journals Sociodemographic Predictors of Breast Reconstruction Procedure Choice: Analysis of the Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study Cohort

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiffany N. S. Ballard ◽  
Yeonil Kim ◽  
Wess A. Cohen ◽  
Jennifer B. Hamill ◽  
Adeyiza O. Momoh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Breast Reconstruction ◽  
Prophylactic Mastectomy ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Sociodemographic Factors ◽  
Study Cohort ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
The Impact

Background. To promote patient-centered care, it is important to understand the impact of sociodemographic factors on procedure choice for women undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction. In this context, we analyzed the effects of these variables on the reconstructive method chosen. Methods. Women undergoing postmastectomy breast reconstruction were recruited for the prospective Mastectomy Reconstruction Outcomes Consortium Study. Procedure types were divided into tissue expander-implant/direct-to-implant and abdominally based flap reconstructions. Adjusted odds ratios were calculated from logistic regression. Results. The analysis included 2,203 women with current or previous breast cancer and 202 women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy. Compared with women <40 years old with current or previous breast cancer, those 40 to 59 were significantly more likely to undergo an abdominally based flap. Women working or attending school full-time were more likely to receive an autologous procedure than those working part-time or volunteering. Women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy who were ≥50 years were more likely to undergo an abdominal flap compared to those <40. Conclusions. Our results indicate that sociodemographic factors affect the reconstructive procedure received. As we move forward into a new era of patient-centered care, providing tailored treatment options to reconstruction patients will likely lead to higher satisfaction and better outcomes for those we serve.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document