PURPOSE: Care coordination is increasingly recognized as a necessary element of high-quality, patient-centered care. This study investigated (1) the association between care coordination and continuity of primary care, and (2) differences in this association by level of specialty care use. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of Medicare enrollees with select chronic conditions in an integrated health care delivery system in Washington State. We collected survey information on patient experiences and automated health care utilization data for 1 year preceding survey completion. Coordination was defined by the coordination measure from the short form of the Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey (ACES). Continuity was measured by primary care visit concentration. Patients who had 10 or more specialty care visits were classified as high users. Linear regression was used to estimate the association between coordination and continuity, controlling for potential confounders and clustering within clinicians. We used a continuity-by-specialty interaction term to determine whether the continuity-coordination association was modified by high specialty care use. RESULTS: Among low specialty care users, an increase of 1 standard deviation (SD) in continuity was associated with an increase of 2.71 in the ACES coordination scale (P <.001). In high specialty care users, we observed no association between continuity and reported coordination (P= .77). CONCLUSIONS: High use of specialty care may strain the ability of primary care clinicians to coordinate care effectively. Future studies should investigate care coordination interventions that allow for appropriate specialty care referrals without diminishing the ability of primary care physicians to manage overall patient care.
PURPOSE: Care coordination is increasingly recognized as a necessary element of high-quality, patient-centered care. This study investigated (1) the association between care coordination and continuity of primary care, and (2) differences in this association by level of specialty care use. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of Medicare enrollees with select chronic conditions in an integrated health care delivery system in Washington State. We collected survey information on patient experiences and automated health care utilization data for 1 year preceding survey completion. Coordination was defined by the coordination measure from the short form of the Ambulatory Care Experiences Survey (ACES). Continuity was measured by primary care visit concentration. Patients who had 10 or more specialty care visits were classified as high users. Linear regression was used to estimate the association between coordination and continuity, controlling for potential confounders and clustering within clinicians. We used a continuity-by-specialty interaction term to determine whether the continuity-coordination association was modified by high specialty care use. RESULTS: Among low specialty care users, an increase of 1 standard deviation (SD) in continuity was associated with an increase of 2.71 in the ACES coordination scale (P <.001). In high specialty care users, we observed no association between continuity and reported coordination (P= .77). CONCLUSIONS: High use of specialty care may strain the ability of primary care clinicians to coordinate care effectively. Future studies should investigate care coordination interventions that allow for appropriate specialty care referrals without diminishing the ability of primary care physicians to manage overall patient care.
Authors: James M Naessens; Macaran A Baird; Holly K Van Houten; David J Vanness; Claudia R Campbell Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Russell E Glasgow; Edward H Wagner; Judith Schaefer; Lisa D Mahoney; Robert J Reid; Sarah M Greene Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Truls Østbye; Kimberly S H Yarnall; Katrina M Krause; Kathryn I Pollak; Margaret Gradison; J Lloyd Michener Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Peter Langhorne; Gillian Taylor; Gordon Murray; Martin Dennis; Craig Anderson; Erik Bautz-Holter; Paola Dey; Bent Indredavik; Nancy Mayo; Michael Power; Helen Rodgers; Ole Morten Ronning; Anthony Rudd; Nijasri Suwanwela; Lotta Widen-Holmqvist; Charles Wolfe Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Feb 5-11 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Elizabeth A Bayliss; Jennifer L Ellis; Jo Ann Shoup; Chan Zeng; Deanna B McQuillan; John F Steiner Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Pierre Tousignant; Mamadou Diop; Michel Fournier; Yves Roy; Jeannie Haggerty; William Hogg; Marie-Dominique Beaulieu Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Sara L Ackerman; Nathaniel Gleason; Jennifer Monacelli; Don Collado; Michael Wang; Chanda Ho; Sereina Catschegn-Pfab; Ralph Gonzales Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Rachel O Reid; J Scott Ashwood; Mark W Friedberg; Ellerie S Weber; Claude M Setodji; Ateev Mehrotra Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 5.128