Aaron Micah B, Kerrissey Michaela, Novikov Zhanna, Tietschert Maike V, Scherling Adam, Bahadurzada Hassina, Phillips Russell S, Sinaiko Anna D, Singer Sara J
Department of Health Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Department of Health Policy & Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Health Serv Res. 2024 Dec;59(6):e14214. doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.14214. Epub 2023 Aug 21.
The study aims to analyze the relationship between care integration and care quality, and to examine if the relationship varies by patient risk.
The key independent variables used validated measures derived from a provider survey of functional (i.e., administrative and clinical systems) and social (i.e., patient integration, professional cooperation, professional coordination) integration. Survey responses represented data from a stratified sample of 59 practice sites from 17 health systems. Dependent variables included three quality measures constructed from patient-level Medicare data: colorectal cancer screening among patients at risk, patient-level 30-day readmission, and a practice-level Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) composite measure of publicly reported, individual measures of ambulatory clinical quality performance.
DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHOD: We obtained quality- and beneficiary-level covariate data for the 41,966 Medicare beneficiaries served by the 59 practices in our survey sample.
We estimated hierarchical linear models to examine the association between care integration and care quality and the moderating effect of patients' clinical risk score. We graphically visualized the moderating effects at ±1 standard deviation of our z-standardized independent and moderating variables and performed simple slope tests.
Our analyses uncovered a strong positive relationship between social integration, specifically patient integration, and the quality of care a patient receives (e.g., a 1-point increase in a practice's patient integration was associated with 0.31-point higher HEDIS composite score, p < 0.01). Further, we documented positive and significant associations between aspects of social and functional integration on quality of care based on patient risk.
The findings suggest social integration matters for improving the quality of care and that the relationship of integration to quality is not uniform for all patients. Policymakers and practitioners considering structural integrations of health systems should direct attention beyond structure to consider the potential for social integration to impact outcomes and how that might be achieved.
本研究旨在分析医疗整合与医疗质量之间的关系,并检验这种关系是否因患者风险而异。
关键自变量采用了经过验证的测量方法,这些方法源自对医疗服务提供者的功能(即行政和临床系统)和社会(即患者整合、专业合作、专业协调)整合情况的调查。调查回复代表了来自17个医疗系统的59个执业地点的分层样本数据。因变量包括根据患者层面的医疗保险数据构建的三项质量指标:有风险患者的结直肠癌筛查、患者层面的30天再入院率,以及基于公开报告的个体门诊临床质量表现指标构建的执业层面的医疗保健效果数据和信息集(HEDIS)综合指标。
数据收集/提取方法:我们获取了调查样本中59个执业机构所服务的41,966名医疗保险受益人的质量和受益人层面的协变量数据。
我们估计了分层线性模型,以检验医疗整合与医疗质量之间的关联以及患者临床风险评分的调节作用。我们以图形方式直观展示了标准化独立变量和调节变量在±1个标准差时的调节作用,并进行了简单斜率检验。
我们的分析发现,社会整合,特别是患者整合,与患者接受的医疗质量之间存在强烈的正相关关系(例如,执业机构的患者整合得分每提高1分,HEDIS综合得分就会提高0.31分,p < 0.01)。此外,我们记录了基于患者风险的社会和功能整合各方面与医疗质量之间存在积极且显著的关联。
研究结果表明,社会整合对提高医疗质量至关重要,而且整合与质量之间的关系并非对所有患者都是一致的。考虑医疗系统结构整合的政策制定者和从业者应将注意力从结构本身扩展,以考虑社会整合对结果产生影响的可能性以及如何实现这种影响。