Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36447273›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2022

How health systems facilitate patient-centered care and care coordination: a case series analysis to identify best practices.

Kaitlyn Simpson, Wilson Nham, Josh Thariath, Hannah Schafer, Margaret Greenwood-Eriksen, Michael D Fetters, David Serlin, Timothy Peterson, Mahshid Abir

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Kaitlyn SimpsonAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. ksson@med.umich.edu.
Wilson NhamAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Josh ThariathAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Hannah SchaferAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Margaret Greenwood-EriksenAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Michael D FettersMichigan Mixed Methods Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
David SerlinAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Timothy PetersonAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Mahshid AbirAcute Care Research Unit, Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USMichigan Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large- and small-scale transformation of healthcare delivery toward improved patient experience through promotion of patient-centered and coordinated care continues to be at the forefront of health system efforts in the United States. As part of a Quality Improvement (QI) project at a large, midwestern health system, a case series of high-performing organizations was explored with the goal of identifying best practices in patient-centered care and/or care coordination (PCC/CC). Identification of best practices was done through rapid realist review of peer-reviewed literature supporting three PCC/CC interventions per case. Mechanisms responsible for successful intervention outcomes and associated institutional-level facilitators were evaluated, and cross-case analysis produced high-level focus items for health system leadership, including (1) institutional values surrounding PCC/CC, (2) optimization of IT infrastructure to enhance performance and communication, (3) pay structures and employment models that enhance accountability, and (4) organizing bodies to support implementation efforts. Health systems may use this review to gain insight into how institutional-level factors may facilitate small-scale PCC/CC behaviors, or to conduct similar assessments in their own QI projects. Based on our analysis, we recommend health systems seeking to improve PCC/CC at any level or scale to evaluate how IT infrastructure affects provider-provider and provider-patient communication, and the extent to which institutional prioritization of PCC/CC is manifest and held accountable in performance feedback, incentivization, and values shared among departments and settings. Ideally, this evaluation work should be performed and/or supported by cross-department organizing bodies specifically devoted to PCC/CC implementation work.

Indexed as

Government ProgramsMedical AssistanceCommunicationHumansPatient-Centered CareResearchCare coordinationCase series analysisHealthcare deliveryHealth system transformationPatient centered careQuality improvementRealist review

Identifiers

PMID36447273
PMCPMC9710067
OpenAlexW4310601286

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.