David Grembowski1, Judith Schaefer, Karin E Johnson, Henry Fischer, Susan L Moore, Ming Tai-Seale, Richard Ricciardi, James R Fraser, Donald Miller, Lisa LeRoy. 1. *Department of Health Services, University of Washington †MacColl Center for Healthcare Innovation, Group Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA ‡Denver Health and Hospital Authority, Denver, CO §Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA ∥Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Center for Primary Care, Prevention, and Clinical Partnerships, Rockville, MD ¶Center for Health Quality, Outcomes, and Economic Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford #Abt Associates, Cambridge, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective healthcare for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is a US priority, but the inherent complexity makes both research and delivery of care particularly challenging. As part of AHRQ Multiple Chronic Conditions Research Network (MCCRN) efforts, the Network developed a conceptual model to guide research in this area. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize methodological and topical issues relevant to MCC patient care into a framework that can improve the delivery of care and advance future research about caring for patients with MCC. METHODS: The Network synthesized essential constructs for MCC research identified from roundtable discussion, input from expert advisors, and previously published models. RESULTS: The AHRQ MCCRN conceptual model defines complexity as the gap between patient needs and healthcare services, taking into account both the multiple considerations that affect the needs of MCC patients, as well as the contextual factors that influence service delivery. The model reframes processes and outcomes to include not only clinical care quality and experience, but also patient health, well being, and quality of life. The single-condition paradigm for treating needs one-by-one falls apart and highlights the need for care systems to address dynamic patient needs. CONCLUSIONS: Defining complexity in terms of the misalignment between patient needs and services offers new insights in how to research and develop solutions to patient care needs.
BACKGROUND: Effective healthcare for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is a US priority, but the inherent complexity makes both research and delivery of care particularly challenging. As part of AHRQ Multiple Chronic Conditions Research Network (MCCRN) efforts, the Network developed a conceptual model to guide research in this area. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize methodological and topical issues relevant to MCC patient care into a framework that can improve the delivery of care and advance future research about caring for patients with MCC. METHODS: The Network synthesized essential constructs for MCC research identified from roundtable discussion, input from expert advisors, and previously published models. RESULTS: The AHRQ MCCRN conceptual model defines complexity as the gap between patient needs and healthcare services, taking into account both the multiple considerations that affect the needs of MCC patients, as well as the contextual factors that influence service delivery. The model reframes processes and outcomes to include not only clinical care quality and experience, but also patient health, well being, and quality of life. The single-condition paradigm for treating needs one-by-one falls apart and highlights the need for care systems to address dynamic patient needs. CONCLUSIONS: Defining complexity in terms of the misalignment between patient needs and services offers new insights in how to research and develop solutions to patient care needs.
Authors: Amit Kumar; Maricruz Rivera-Hernandez; Amol M Karmarkar; Lin-Na Chou; Yong-Fang Kuo; Julie A Baldwin; Orestis A Panagiotou; Robert E Burke; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-10-16 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: George Demiris; Nancy A Hodgson; Justine S Sefcik; Jasmine L Travers; Miranda Varrassee McPhillips; Mary D Naylor Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Victor M Montori; Ian Hargraves; Robert J McNellis; Theodore G Ganiats; Janice Genevro; Therese Miller; Richard Ricciardi; Arlene S Bierman Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-11-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Diego Garcia-Huidobro; Nathan Shippee; Julia Joseph-DiCaprio; Jennifer M O'Brien; Maria Veronica Svetaz Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-05-16 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sun Hee Rim; Gery P Guy; K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen A McGraw; Donatus U Ekwueme Journal: Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Leah L Zullig; Heather E Whitson; Susan N Hastings; Chris Beadles; Julia Kravchenko; Igor Akushevich; Matthew L Maciejewski Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-09-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Simon J Craddock Lee; Mark A Clark; John V Cox; Burton M Needles; Carole Seigel; Bijal A Balasubramanian Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840