Donna M Zulman1,2, Evelyn T Chang3,4,5, Ava Wong6, Jean Yoon6,7, Susan E Stockdale3,8, Michael K Ong3,4,5, Lisa V Rubenstein4,9, Steven M Asch6,10. 1. Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, CA, USA. dzulman@stanford.edu. 2. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA. dzulman@stanford.edu. 3. VA Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), Los Angeles, CA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 5. Department of Medicine, VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 6. Center for Innovation to Implementation (Ci2i), VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, CA, USA. 7. VA Health Economics Resource Center, Menlo Park, CA, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 9. RAND, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 10. Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS:Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACT patients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACT patients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Intensive primary care programs aim to coordinate care for patients with medical, behavioral, and social complexity, but little is known about their impact on patient experience when implemented in a medical home. OBJECTIVE: Determine how augmenting the VA's medical home (Patient Aligned Care Team, PACT) with a PACT-Intensive Management (PIM) program influences patient experiences with care coordination, access, provider relationships, and satisfaction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of patient survey data from a five-site randomized quality improvement study. PARTICIPANTS: Two thousand five hundred sixty-six Veterans with hospitalization risk scores ≥ 90th percentile and recent acute care. INTERVENTION: PIM offered patients intensive care coordination, including home visits, accompaniment to specialists, acute care follow-up, and case management from a team staffed by primary care providers, social workers, psychologists, nurses, and/or other support staff. MAIN MEASURES: Patient-reported experiences with care coordination (e.g., health goal assessment, test and appointment follow-up, Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC)), access to healthcare services, provider relationships, and satisfaction. KEY RESULTS: Seven hundred fifty-nine PIM and 768 PACTpatients responded to the survey (response rate 60%). Patients randomized to PIM were more likely than those in PACT to report that they were asked about their health goals (AOR = 1.26; P = 0.046) and that they have a VA provider whom they trust (AOR = 1.35; P = 0.005). PIM patients also had higher mean (SD) PACIC scores compared with PACTpatients (2.91 (1.31) vs. 2.75 (1.25), respectively; P = 0.022) and were more likely to report 10 out of 10 on satisfaction with primary care (AOR = 1.25; P = 0.048). However, other effects on coordination, access, and satisfaction did not achieve statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Augmenting VA's patient-centered medical home with intensive primary care had a modestly positive influence on high-risk patients' experiences with care coordination and provider relationships, but did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported access and satisfaction measures.
Entities:
Keywords:
care coordination; patient-centered care; primary care
Authors: Steven R Counsell; Christopher M Callahan; Amna B Buttar; Daniel O Clark; Kathryn I Frank Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 5.562
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: Chad Boult; Ariel Frank Green; Lisa B Boult; James T Pacala; Claire Snyder; Bruce Leff Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: François Béland; Howard Bergman; Paule Lebel; A Mark Clarfield; Pierre Tousignant; André-Pierre Contandriopoulos; Luc Dallaire Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Mary D Naylor; Dorothy A Brooten; Roberta L Campbell; Greg Maislin; Kathleen M McCauley; J Sanford Schwartz Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Lisa D Chew; Joan M Griffin; Melissa R Partin; Siamak Noorbaloochi; Joseph P Grill; Annamay Snyder; Katharine A Bradley; Sean M Nugent; Alisha D Baines; Michelle Vanryn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-03-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kristina M Cordasco; Denise M Hynes; Kristin M Mattocks; Lori A Bastian; Hayden B Bosworth; David Atkins Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michelle S Wong; Tana M Luger; Marian L Katz; Susan E Stockdale; Nate L Ewigman; Jeffrey L Jackson; Donna M Zulman; Steven M Asch; Michael K Ong; Evelyn T Chang Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Evelyn T Chang; Steven M Asch; Jessica Eng; Frances Gutierrez; Angela Denietolis; David Atkins Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Evelyn T Chang; Jean Yoon; Aryan Esmaeili; Donna M Zulman; Michael K Ong; Susan E Stockdale; Elvira E Jimenez; Karen Chu; David Atkins; Angela Denietolis; Steven M Asch Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 3.734