Mina Ostovari1, Charlotte-Joy Steele-Morris2, Paul M Griffin1,3, Denny Yu1. 1. School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. 2. School of Medicine, Indiana University (retired), West Lafayette, Indiana, USA. 3. Regenstrief Center for Health care Engineering, Gerald D. and Edna E. Mann Hall, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We assess working relationships and collaborations within and between diabetes health care provider teams using social network analysis and a multi-scale community detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large employer over 2 years was performed. The study cohort contained 827 patients diagnosed with diabetes. The cohort received care from 2567 and 2541 health care providers in the first and second year, respectively. Social network analysis was used to identify networks of health care providers involved in the care of patients with diabetes. A multi-scale community detection was applied to the network to identify groups of health care providers more densely connected. Social network analysis metrics identified influential providers for the overall network and for each community of providers. RESULTS: Centrality measures identified medical laboratories and mail-order pharmacies as the central providers for the 2 years. Seventy-six percent of the detected communities included primary care physicians, and 97% of the communities included specialists. Pharmacists were detected as central providers in 24% of the communities. DISCUSSION: Social network analysis measures identified the central providers in the network of diabetes health care providers. These providers could be considered as influencers in the network that could enhance the implication of promotion programs through their access to a large number of patients and providers. CONCLUSION: The proposed framework provides multi-scale metrics for assessing care team relationships. These metrics can be used by implementation experts to identify influential providers for care interventions and by health service researchers to determine impact of team relationships on patient outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: We assess working relationships and collaborations within and between diabetes health care provider teams using social network analysis and a multi-scale community detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of claims data from a large employer over 2 years was performed. The study cohort contained 827 patients diagnosed with diabetes. The cohort received care from 2567 and 2541 health care providers in the first and second year, respectively. Social network analysis was used to identify networks of health care providers involved in the care of patients with diabetes. A multi-scale community detection was applied to the network to identify groups of health care providers more densely connected. Social network analysis metrics identified influential providers for the overall network and for each community of providers. RESULTS: Centrality measures identified medical laboratories and mail-order pharmacies as the central providers for the 2 years. Seventy-six percent of the detected communities included primary care physicians, and 97% of the communities included specialists. Pharmacists were detected as central providers in 24% of the communities. DISCUSSION: Social network analysis measures identified the central providers in the network of diabetes health care providers. These providers could be considered as influencers in the network that could enhance the implication of promotion programs through their access to a large number of patients and providers. CONCLUSION: The proposed framework provides multi-scale metrics for assessing care team relationships. These metrics can be used by implementation experts to identify influential providers for care interventions and by health service researchers to determine impact of team relationships on patient outcomes.
Authors: Bruce E Landon; Nancy L Keating; Jukka-Pekka Onnela; Alan M Zaslavsky; Nicholas A Christakis; A James O'Malley Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-01-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Justin G Trogdon; Yunkyung Chang; Saray Shai; Peter J Mucha; Tzy-Mey Kuo; Anne M Meyer; Karyn B Stitzenberg Journal: Med Care Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Craig Evan Pollack; Gary E Weissman; Klaus W Lemke; Peter S Hussey; Jonathan P Weiner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-06-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Hassan M K Ghomrawi; Russell J Funk; Michael L Parks; Jason Owen-Smith; John M Hollingsworth Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vitej Bari; Jamie S Hirsch; Joseph Narvaez; Robert Sardinia; Kevin R Bock; Michael I Oppenheim; Marsha Meytlis Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 4.497