Martha Quinn1, Claire Robinson, Jane Forman, Sarah L Krein, Ann-Marie Rosland. 1. *University of Michigan School of Public Health †VA Ann Arbor Center for Clinical Management Research, Health Services Research and Development ‡Department of Internal Medicine, Taubman Center, University of Michigan Medical School §University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Ann Arbor, MI.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving access can increase the providers a patient sees, and cause coordination challenges. For initiatives that increase care across health care settings, measuring patient experiences with access and care coordination will be crucial. OBJECTIVES: Map existing survey measures of patient experiences with access and care coordination expected to be relevant to patients accessing care across settings. Preliminarily examine whether aspects of access and care coordination important to patients are represented by existing measures. RESEARCH DESIGN: Structured literature review of domains and existing survey measures related to access and care coordination across settings. Survey measures, and preliminary themes from semistructured interviews of 10 patients offered VA-purchased Community Care, were mapped to identified domains. RESULTS: We identified 31 existing survey instruments with 279 items representing 6 access and 5 care coordination domains relevant to cross-system care. Domains frequently assessed by existing measures included follow-up coordination, primary care access, cross-setting coordination, and continuity. Preliminary issues identified in interviews, but not commonly assessed by existing measures included: (1) acceptability of distance to care site given patient's clinical situation; (2) burden on patients to access and coordinate care and billing; (3) provider familiarity with Veteran culture and VA processes. CONCLUSIONS: Existing survey instruments assess many aspects of patient experiences with access and care coordination in cross-system care. Systems assessing cross-system care should consider whether patient surveys accurately reflect the level of patients' concerns with burden to access and coordinate care, and adequately reflect the impact of clinical severity and cultural familiarity on patient preferences.
BACKGROUND: Improving access can increase the providers a patient sees, and cause coordination challenges. For initiatives that increase care across health care settings, measuring patient experiences with access and care coordination will be crucial. OBJECTIVES: Map existing survey measures of patient experiences with access and care coordination expected to be relevant to patients accessing care across settings. Preliminarily examine whether aspects of access and care coordination important to patients are represented by existing measures. RESEARCH DESIGN: Structured literature review of domains and existing survey measures related to access and care coordination across settings. Survey measures, and preliminary themes from semistructured interviews of 10 patients offered VA-purchased Community Care, were mapped to identified domains. RESULTS: We identified 31 existing survey instruments with 279 items representing 6 access and 5 care coordination domains relevant to cross-system care. Domains frequently assessed by existing measures included follow-up coordination, primary care access, cross-setting coordination, and continuity. Preliminary issues identified in interviews, but not commonly assessed by existing measures included: (1) acceptability of distance to care site given patient's clinical situation; (2) burden on patients to access and coordinate care and billing; (3) provider familiarity with Veteran culture and VA processes. CONCLUSIONS: Existing survey instruments assess many aspects of patient experiences with access and care coordination in cross-system care. Systems assessing cross-system care should consider whether patient surveys accurately reflect the level of patients' concerns with burden to access and coordinate care, and adequately reflect the impact of clinical severity and cultural familiarity on patient preferences.
Authors: Sina Waibel; Diana Henao; Marta-Beatriz Aller; Ingrid Vargas; María-Luisa Vázquez Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2011-12-06 Impact factor: 2.038
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: Robert Weech-Maldonado; Adam Carle; Beverly Weidmer; Margarita Hurtado; Quyen Ngo-Metzger; Ron D Hays Journal: Med Care Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: P L Remington; M Y Smith; D F Williamson; R F Anda; E M Gentry; G C Hogelin Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 1988 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: John C Fortney; James F Burgess; Hayden B Bosworth; Brenda M Booth; Peter J Kaboli Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristin M Mattocks; Kristin Cunningham; A Rani Elwy; Erin P Finley; Clinton Greenstone; Michelle A Mengeling; Steven D Pizer; Megan E Vanneman; Michael Weiner; Lori A Bastian Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Polly H Noël; Jenny M Barnard; Frances M Barry; Alissa Simon; Martin L Lee; Tanya T Olmos-Ochoa; Neetu Chawla; Danielle E Rose; Susan E Stockdale; Erin P Finley; Lauren S Penney; David A Ganz Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Melissa Z Braganza; Elsa Pearson; Cecille Joan Avila; Dave Zlowe; John Øvretveit; Amy M Kilbourne Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2022-03-04 Impact factor: 3.734
Authors: Jason B Liu; Andrea L Pusic; Bruce L Hall; Robert E Glasgow; Clifford Y Ko; Larissa K Temple Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Geronimo Jimenez; David Matchar; Gerald Choon Huat Koh; Shilpa Tyagi; Rianne M J J van der Kleij; Niels H Chavannes; Josip Car Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 1.458