Suppr超能文献

重要结果:高需求患者和初级保健领导者对强化初级保健试点项目的看法。

Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.

机构信息

Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation & Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles HSR&D, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Covenant Health Network, Phoenix, AZ, USA.

出版信息

J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3366-3372. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06869-4. Epub 2021 May 13.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Quantitative evaluations of the effectiveness of intensive primary care (IPC) programs for high-needs patients have yielded mixed results for improving healthcare utilization, cost, and mortality. However, IPC programs may provide other value.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the perspectives of high-needs patients and primary care facility leaders on the effects of a Veterans Affairs (VA) IPC program on patients.

DESIGN

A total of 66 semi-structured telephone interviews with high-needs VA patients and primary care facility leaders were conducted as part of the IPC program evaluation.

PARTICIPANTS

High-needs patients (n = 51) and primary care facility leaders (n = 15) at 5 VA pilot sites.

APPROACH

We used content analysis to examine interview transcripts for both a priori and emergent themes about perceived IPC program effects.

KEY RESULTS

Patients enrolled in VA IPCs reported improvements in their experience of VA care (e.g., patient-provider relationship, access to their team). Both patients and leaders reported improvements in patient motivation to engage with self-care and with their IPC team, and behaviors, especially diet, exercise, and medication management. Patients also perceived improvements in health and described receiving assistance with social needs. Despite this, patients and leaders also outlined patient health characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., chronic health conditions, housing insecurity) that may have limited the effectiveness of the program on healthcare cost and utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and primary care facility leaders report benefits for high-needs patients from IPC interventions that translated into perceived improvements in healthcare, health behaviors, and physical and mental health status. Most program evaluations focus on cost and utilization, which may be less amenable to change given this cohort's numerous comorbid health conditions and complex social circumstances. Future IPC program evaluations should additionally examine IPC's effects on quality of care, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and patient health behaviors other than utilization (e.g., engagement, self-efficacy).

摘要

背景

对强化初级保健(IPC)计划对高需求患者的有效性进行定量评估,其改善医疗保健利用、成本和死亡率的结果喜忧参半。然而,IPC 计划可能会提供其他价值。

目的

了解高需求患者和初级保健机构领导对退伍军人事务部(VA)IPC 计划对患者影响的看法。

设计

作为 IPC 计划评估的一部分,共对 5 个 VA 试点的 51 名高需求 VA 患者和 15 名初级保健机构领导进行了 66 次半结构式电话访谈。

参与者

高需求 VA 患者(n=51)和初级保健机构领导(n=15)在 5 个 VA 试点。

方法

我们使用内容分析法检查访谈记录中关于感知 IPC 计划效果的预设和新兴主题。

主要结果

参加 VA IPC 的患者报告称他们对 VA 护理的体验有所改善(例如,医患关系、获得团队支持)。患者和领导者都报告称患者参与自我保健和 IPC 团队的积极性以及行为(尤其是饮食、锻炼和药物管理)有所改善。患者还认为他们的健康状况有所改善,并表示得到了社会需求方面的帮助。尽管如此,患者和领导者还概述了患者的健康特征和背景因素(例如,慢性健康状况、住房不安全),这些因素可能限制了该计划对医疗保健成本和利用率的有效性。

结论

患者和初级保健机构领导报告称,IPC 干预措施对高需求患者有益,这转化为医疗保健、健康行为以及身体和心理健康状况的感知改善。大多数计划评估都侧重于成本和利用率,鉴于这一人群存在许多合并健康状况和复杂的社会环境,这些因素可能更难改变。未来的 IPC 计划评估还应额外检查 IPC 对护理质量、患者满意度、生活质量和患者健康行为(例如参与度、自我效能感)的影响,而不仅仅是利用率。

相似文献

1
Outcomes that Matter: High-Needs Patients' and Primary Care Leaders' Perspectives on an Intensive Primary Care Pilot.
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3366-3372. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-06869-4. Epub 2021 May 13.
3
What Do Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) Teams Need to Improve Care for Primary Care Patients with Complex Needs?
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Sep;36(9):2717-2723. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06563-x. Epub 2021 Jan 28.
4
6
7
Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Nov;38(15):3288-3294. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08336-8. Epub 2023 Aug 24.
8
9
Factors affecting primary care implementation for older veterans with multimorbidity in Veterans Health Administration (VA).
Health Serv Res. 2021 Oct;56 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):1057-1068. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13859. Epub 2021 Aug 27.

引用本文的文献

3
Impact of Referring High-Risk Patients to Intensive Outpatient Primary Care Services: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
J Gen Intern Med. 2025 Feb;40(3):637-646. doi: 10.1007/s11606-024-08923-3. Epub 2024 Jul 29.
4
Meeting high-risk patient pain care needs through intensive primary care: a secondary analysis.
BMJ Open. 2024 Jan 2;14(1):e080748. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080748.
6
Types of Engagement Strategies to Engage High-Risk Patients in VA.
J Gen Intern Med. 2023 Nov;38(15):3288-3294. doi: 10.1007/s11606-023-08336-8. Epub 2023 Aug 24.
7
What Is the Return on Investment of Caring for Complex High-need, High-cost Patients?
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Nov;36(11):3541-3544. doi: 10.1007/s11606-021-07110-y. Epub 2021 Sep 10.

本文引用的文献

2
Facilitating ethical quality improvement initiatives: Design and implementation of an initiative-specific ethics committee.
Healthc (Amst). 2020 Jun;8(2):100425. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2020.100425. Epub 2020 May 20.
3
Health Care Hotspotting - A Randomized, Controlled Trial.
N Engl J Med. 2020 May 28;382(22):2172-2173. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc2001920.
4
Health Care Hotspotting - A Randomized, Controlled Trial.
N Engl J Med. 2020 Jan 9;382(2):152-162. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1906848.
6
Which patients are persistently high-risk for hospitalization?
Am J Manag Care. 2019 Sep 1;25(9):e274-e281.
7
Values-Based Interventions in Patient Engagement for Those with Complex Needs.
Popul Health Manag. 2020 Apr;23(2):140-145. doi: 10.1089/pop.2019.0084. Epub 2019 Sep 10.
10
A systematic review of dimensions evaluating patient experience in chronic illness.
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Jan 21;17(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12955-019-1084-2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验