Courtney Gidengil1, Layla Parast2, Q Burkhart2, Julie Brown2, Marc N Elliott2, K Casey Lion3, Elizabeth A McGlynn4, Eric C Schneider5, Rita Mangione-Smith3. 1. RAND Corporation, Boston, Mass; Division of Infectious Diseases, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Mass; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass. Electronic address: gidengil@rand.org. 2. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. 3. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington/Seattle Children's Hospital; Seattle Children's Research Institute. 4. Kaiser Permanente Center for Effectiveness and Safety Research, Pasadena, Calif. 5. The Commonwealth Fund, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Ensuring high-quality care coordination for children with medical complexity (CMC) could yield significant health and economic benefits because they account for one-third of pediatric health care expenditures. The objective of this study was to develop and field test the Family Experiences with Coordination of Care (FECC) survey, which facilitates assessment of 20 new caregiver-reported quality measures for CMC. METHODS: We identified caregivers of Medicaid-insured CMC aged 0 to 17 years in Minnesota and Washington state, categorized by the Pediatric Medical Complexity Algorithm as having complex chronic disease. Eligible caregivers had CMC with at least 4 visits to health care providers participating in Medicaid in 2012. Caregivers were randomized to telephone or mixed mode (mail with telephone follow-up). Survey administration and data were collected in 2013. RESULTS: Twelve hundred nine caregivers responded to the FECC survey (response rate, 41%; 36% via telephone only, 46% via mixed mode; P < .001). Among CMC with a hospitalization, caregivers were invited to join hospital rounds in 51% of cases. Seventy-two percent of caregivers reported their child had a care coordinator; among these, 96% reported knowing how to access the care coordinator. Few children had written shared care plans (44%) or emergency care plans (20%). Only 10% of adolescents had a written transition care plan. Scores were lower from mixed mode respondents than from telephone-only respondents for some measures. CONCLUSIONS: The FECC survey enables the evaluation of care coordination quality for CMC. Both survey modes were feasible to implement, but mixed mode administration produced a higher response rate.
OBJECTIVE: Ensuring high-quality care coordination for children with medical complexity (CMC) could yield significant health and economic benefits because they account for one-third of pediatric health care expenditures. The objective of this study was to develop and field test the Family Experiences with Coordination of Care (FECC) survey, which facilitates assessment of 20 new caregiver-reported quality measures for CMC. METHODS: We identified caregivers of Medicaid-insured CMC aged 0 to 17 years in Minnesota and Washington state, categorized by the Pediatric Medical Complexity Algorithm as having complex chronic disease. Eligible caregivers had CMC with at least 4 visits to health care providers participating in Medicaid in 2012. Caregivers were randomized to telephone or mixed mode (mail with telephone follow-up). Survey administration and data were collected in 2013. RESULTS: Twelve hundred nine caregivers responded to the FECC survey (response rate, 41%; 36% via telephone only, 46% via mixed mode; P < .001). Among CMC with a hospitalization, caregivers were invited to join hospital rounds in 51% of cases. Seventy-two percent of caregivers reported their child had a care coordinator; among these, 96% reported knowing how to access the care coordinator. Few children had written shared care plans (44%) or emergency care plans (20%). Only 10% of adolescents had a written transition care plan. Scores were lower from mixed mode respondents than from telephone-only respondents for some measures. CONCLUSIONS: The FECC survey enables the evaluation of care coordination quality for CMC. Both survey modes were feasible to implement, but mixed mode administration produced a higher response rate.
Authors: Renuka Tipirneni; Jeffrey T Kullgren; John Z Ayanian; Edith C Kieffer; Ann-Marie Rosland; Tammy Chang; Adrianne N Haggins; Sarah J Clark; Sunghee Lee; Erica Solway; Matthias A Kirch; Christina Mrukowicz; Erin Beathard; Erin Sears; Susan D Goold Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-12-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ryan J Coller; Michelle M Kelly; Daniel J Sklansky; Kristin A Shadman; Mary L Ehlenbach; Christina B Barreda; Paul J Chung; Qianqian Zhao; Marshall Bruce Edmonson Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-06-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Justin A Yu; Yael Schenker; Scott H Maurer; Stacey C Cook; Dio Kavlieratos; Amy Houtrow Journal: Fam Syst Health Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 1.950
Authors: Layla Parast; Q Burkhart; Courtney Gidengil; Eric C Schneider; Rita Mangione-Smith; Casey Lion; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Adam Carle; Maria T Britto; Marc N Elliott Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Julia Orkin; Carol Y Chan; Nora Fayed; Jia Lu Lilian Lin; Nathalie Major; Audrey Lim; Erin R Peebles; Myla E Moretti; Joanna Soscia; Roxana Sultan; Andrew R Willan; Martin Offringa; Astrid Guttmann; Leah Bartlett; Ronik Kanani; Erin Culbert; Karolyn Hardy-Brown; Michelle Gordon; Marty Perlmutar; Eyal Cohen Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrea J Chow; Michael Pugliese; Laure A Tessier; Pranesh Chakraborty; Ryan Iverson; Doug Coyle; Jonathan B Kronick; Kumanan Wilson; Robin Hayeems; Walla Al-Hertani; Michal Inbar-Feigenberg; Shailly Jain-Ghai; Anne-Marie Laberge; Julian Little; John J Mitchell; Chitra Prasad; Komudi Siriwardena; Rebecca Sparkes; Kathy N Speechley; Sylvia Stockler; Yannis Trakadis; Jagdeep S Walia; Brenda J Wilson; Beth K Potter Journal: Patient Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 3.883