OBJECTIVES: The identification of patients most likely to benefit from care management programs-case finding-is a crucial determinant of their effectiveness regarding improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Until now, research has mainly focused on claims data-based case finding. This study aimed to explore how primary care physicians (PCPs) select patients for practice based care management and how risk prediction may complement their case finding. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: We performed 12 semi-structured interviews with PCPs from 10 small- to middle-sized primary care practices in Germany. The interviews focused on their criteria for selecting patients as potential participants in an on-site care management program and how PCPs evaluate claims data-based risk prediction as a case-finding tool. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. We performed qualitative content analysis using the ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Three major categories emerged from the physicians interviewed: 1) the physicians' interpretation of the program's eligibility criteria, 2) physician-related criteria, and 3) patient-related criteria. The physician-related criteria included "sympathy/aversion" and "knowing the patient." Patient-related criteria concerned care sensitivity in terms of "willingness to participate," "ability to participate (eg, sufficient language skills, cognitive status)," and "manageable care needs." PCPs believed that their case finding could be supported by additional information from claims data-based risk prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Case finding for care management programs in primary care may benefit from a structured approach combining clinical judgment by PCPs and claims data-based risk modeling. However, further research is needed to identify the optimal case-finding strategy for practice based care management.
OBJECTIVES: The identification of patients most likely to benefit from care management programs-case finding-is a crucial determinant of their effectiveness regarding improved health outcomes and reduced costs. Until now, research has mainly focused on claims data-based case finding. This study aimed to explore how primary care physicians (PCPs) select patients for practice based care management and how risk prediction may complement their case finding. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. METHODS: We performed 12 semi-structured interviews with PCPs from 10 small- to middle-sized primary care practices in Germany. The interviews focused on their criteria for selecting patients as potential participants in an on-site care management program and how PCPs evaluate claims data-based risk prediction as a case-finding tool. All interviews were transcribed verbatim. We performed qualitative content analysis using the ATLAS.ti software. RESULTS: Three major categories emerged from the physicians interviewed: 1) the physicians' interpretation of the program's eligibility criteria, 2) physician-related criteria, and 3) patient-related criteria. The physician-related criteria included "sympathy/aversion" and "knowing the patient." Patient-related criteria concerned care sensitivity in terms of "willingness to participate," "ability to participate (eg, sufficient language skills, cognitive status)," and "manageable care needs." PCPs believed that their case finding could be supported by additional information from claims data-based risk prediction. CONCLUSIONS: Case finding for care management programs in primary care may benefit from a structured approach combining clinical judgment by PCPs and claims data-based risk modeling. However, further research is needed to identify the optimal case-finding strategy for practice based care management.
Authors: Tobias Freund; Michel Wensing; Cornelia Mahler; Jochen Gensichen; Antje Erler; Martin Beyer; Ferdinand M Gerlach; Joachim Szecsenyi; Frank Peters-Klimm Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Paul A Nutting; Kaia Gallagher; Kim Riley; Suzanne White; W Perry Dickinson; Neil Korsen; Allen Dietrich Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2008 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Mark D Fleming; Janet K Shim; Irene H Yen; Ariana Thompson-Lastad; Sara Rubin; Meredith Van Natta; Nancy J Burke Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2017-04-20 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Joana Mora; Miren David Iturralde; Lucía Prieto; Cristina Domingo; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Catalina Martínez-Carazo; Anna Giné March; Daniele De Massari; Tino Martí; Marco Nalin; Francesca Avolio; Jean Bousquet; Esteban de Manuel Keenoy Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Mark Rhys Kingston; Bridie Angela Evans; Kayleigh Nelson; Hayley Hutchings; Ian Russell; Helen Snooks Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-01 Impact factor: 2.692