Cargando…

A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape

BACKGROUND: Care coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists amo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Schultz, Ellen M, Pineda, Noelle, Lonhart, Julia, Davies, Sheryl M, McDonald, Kathryn M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-119
_version_ 1782269190842875904
author Schultz, Ellen M
Pineda, Noelle
Lonhart, Julia
Davies, Sheryl M
McDonald, Kathryn M
author_facet Schultz, Ellen M
Pineda, Noelle
Lonhart, Julia
Davies, Sheryl M
McDonald, Kathryn M
author_sort Schultz, Ellen M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Care coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims). RESULTS: Among the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%). CONCLUSIONS: New measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3651252
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36512522013-05-11 A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape Schultz, Ellen M Pineda, Noelle Lonhart, Julia Davies, Sheryl M McDonald, Kathryn M BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Care coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims). RESULTS: Among the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%). CONCLUSIONS: New measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life. BioMed Central 2013-03-28 /pmc/articles/PMC3651252/ /pubmed/23537350 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-119 Text en Copyright © 2013 Schultz et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Schultz, Ellen M
Pineda, Noelle
Lonhart, Julia
Davies, Sheryl M
McDonald, Kathryn M
A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
title A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
title_full A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
title_fullStr A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
title_full_unstemmed A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
title_short A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
title_sort systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651252/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23537350
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-119
work_keys_str_mv AT schultzellenm asystematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT pinedanoelle asystematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT lonhartjulia asystematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT daviessherylm asystematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT mcdonaldkathrynm asystematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT schultzellenm systematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT pinedanoelle systematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT lonhartjulia systematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT daviessherylm systematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape
AT mcdonaldkathrynm systematicreviewofthecarecoordinationmeasurementlandscape