Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30709349›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Sustainable care coordination: a qualitative study of primary care provider, administrator, and insurer perspectives.

Mark D Williams, Gladys B Asiedu, Dawn Finnie, Claire Neely, Jason Egginton, Lila J Finney Rutten, Robert M Jacobson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mark D WilliamsMayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA. Williams.mark@mayo.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3580-2818
Gladys B AsieduMayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Dawn FinnieMayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Claire NeelyInstitute for Clinical Systems Improvement, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
Jason EggintonMayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Lila J Finney RuttenMayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.
Robert M JacobsonMayo Clinic, 200 1st St SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA.

Funding

Mayo Clinic Center for Translational Science ActivitiesUL1TR000135 · NCATS · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI KHOSLA, SUNDEEP · 2012 to 2015
$41.2M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCare coordination has been a common tool for practices seeking to manage complex patients, yet there remains confusion about the most effective and sustainable model. Research exists on opinions of providers of care coordination but there is limited information on perspectives of those in the insurance industry about key elements. We sought to gather opinions from primary care providers and administrators in Minnesota who were involved in a CMS (Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services) transformational grant implementing COMPASS (Care Of Mental, Physical And Substance-use Syndromes), an evidence-based model of care coordination for depressed patients comorbid with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. We then sought to compare these views with those of private insurance representatives in Minnesota.

methodsWe used qualitative methods to conducted forty-two key informant interviews with primary care providers (n = 15); administrators (n = 15); and insurers (n = 12). We analyzed the recorded and transcribed data, once de-identified, using a frameworks analysis approach.

resultsWe identified six primary themes: 1) a defined scope, rationale, and key partnerships for building comprehensive care coordination programs, 2) effective information exchange, 3) a trained and available workforce, 4) the need for a business model and a financially justifiable program, 5) a need for evaluation and ongoing improvement of care coordination, and 6) the importance of patient and family engagement. Overall consensus across stakeholder groups was high including a call for payment reform to support a valued service. Despite their role in paying for care, insurance representatives did not stress reduced utilization as more important than other outcomes.

conclusionsPrimary care providers and administrators from different organizations and backgrounds, all with experience in COMPASS, in large part agreed with insurance representatives on the main elements of a sustainable model and the need for health reform to sustain this service.

Indexed as

Insurance CarriersAdministrative PersonnelAttitude of Health PersonnelDelivery of Health CareHealth Care ReformHealth PersonnelHumansInsurance, HealthMinnesotaPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchUnited StatesCase managementDelivery of health careHealth services researchInsuranceQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID30709349
PMCPMC6359857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.