Can Care Coordination for Multiple Long-Term Conditions Be Meaningfully Measured Using Routine Data? A Multi-Stage Consultation.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Krystal Warmoth, Nicola Small, Vanessa Davey, Patrick Burch, Alex Thompson, Jo Butterworth, Jonathan Gibb, Easter Joury, Steve Callaghan, Felicity Dewhurst
{"title":"Can Care Coordination for Multiple Long-Term Conditions Be Meaningfully Measured Using Routine Data? A Multi-Stage Consultation.","authors":"Krystal Warmoth, Nicola Small, Vanessa Davey, Patrick Burch, Alex Thompson, Jo Butterworth, Jonathan Gibb, Easter Joury, Steve Callaghan, Felicity Dewhurst","doi":"10.1111/hex.70894","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Care coordination is essential for improving healthcare experiences and outcomes for people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), yet it remains challenging to measure care coordination in ways that are both meaningful and feasible at scale. Routine electronic health record (EHR) data offer potential for system-wide measurement, but it is unclear whether such measures reflect what matters to patients, carers, and those delivering care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We undertook a multi-stage, collaborative consultation process to examine whether care coordination in MLTC can be meaningfully measured using routine data. Public contributors (n = 18), professional contributors (n = 23), researchers (n = 15) and data experts (n = 10) participated in structured discussions, co-developed appraisal criteria (including relevance to lived experience and feasibility in EHR data), and assessed measures identified through a linked systematic review. A consensus survey evaluated the appropriateness of shortlisted measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants identified priorities including teamwork, communication, continuity, care management, and accountability. Appraisal criteria balanced patient relevance with feasibility in routine data. While a feasible shortlist of measures was identified, findings showed only qualified support for routine data-derived indicators. Continuity measures were most strongly endorsed but widely recognised as proxies capturing observable activity rather than the relational, experiential, and cross-sector dimensions central to coordinated care. Concerns were raised regarding data quality, conceptual validity, and the risk of incomplete or misleading representations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Routine data-derived measures of care coordination in MLTC hold clear potential but are inherently limited. The findings support a conditional position: such measures can provide useful system-level signals, but only if interpreted cautiously, supported by robust data infrastructure, and complemented by patient-reported insights. Advancing measurement will require integrated approaches that better capture what matters to patients and carers.</p>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"29 5","pages":"e70894"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13633699/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70894","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Care coordination is essential for improving healthcare experiences and outcomes for people living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), yet it remains challenging to measure care coordination in ways that are both meaningful and feasible at scale. Routine electronic health record (EHR) data offer potential for system-wide measurement, but it is unclear whether such measures reflect what matters to patients, carers, and those delivering care.

Methods: We undertook a multi-stage, collaborative consultation process to examine whether care coordination in MLTC can be meaningfully measured using routine data. Public contributors (n = 18), professional contributors (n = 23), researchers (n = 15) and data experts (n = 10) participated in structured discussions, co-developed appraisal criteria (including relevance to lived experience and feasibility in EHR data), and assessed measures identified through a linked systematic review. A consensus survey evaluated the appropriateness of shortlisted measures.

Results: Participants identified priorities including teamwork, communication, continuity, care management, and accountability. Appraisal criteria balanced patient relevance with feasibility in routine data. While a feasible shortlist of measures was identified, findings showed only qualified support for routine data-derived indicators. Continuity measures were most strongly endorsed but widely recognised as proxies capturing observable activity rather than the relational, experiential, and cross-sector dimensions central to coordinated care. Concerns were raised regarding data quality, conceptual validity, and the risk of incomplete or misleading representations.

Conclusions: Routine data-derived measures of care coordination in MLTC hold clear potential but are inherently limited. The findings support a conditional position: such measures can provide useful system-level signals, but only if interpreted cautiously, supported by robust data infrastructure, and complemented by patient-reported insights. Advancing measurement will require integrated approaches that better capture what matters to patients and carers.

多种长期疾病的护理协调是否可以用常规数据进行有意义的测量?多阶段谘询。
背景:护理协调对于改善患有多种长期疾病(MLTC)的人的医疗保健体验和结果至关重要,然而,以有意义和大规模可行的方式衡量护理协调仍然具有挑战性。常规电子健康记录(EHR)数据提供了全系统测量的潜力,但尚不清楚这些测量是否反映了对患者、护理人员和提供护理的人员的重要性。方法:我们进行了一个多阶段的协作咨询过程,以检查MLTC的护理协调是否可以使用常规数据进行有意义的测量。公共贡献者(n = 18)、专业贡献者(n = 23)、研究人员(n = 15)和数据专家(n = 10)参与了结构化讨论,共同制定了评估标准(包括与生活经验的相关性和EHR数据的可行性),并通过相关的系统评价评估了确定的措施。一项共识调查评估了入围措施的适当性。结果:参与者确定了优先事项,包括团队合作、沟通、连续性、护理管理和责任。评估标准平衡了患者相关性和常规数据的可行性。虽然确定了一份可行的措施清单,但调查结果显示,对常规数据衍生指标的支持是有限的。连续性措施得到了最强烈的支持,但被广泛认为是捕捉可观察到的活动的代理,而不是协调护理的核心关系、经验和跨部门维度。对数据质量、概念有效性以及不完整或误导性陈述的风险提出了关注。结论:MLTC中常规数据衍生的护理协调措施具有明显的潜力,但本质上是有限的。研究结果支持了一个有条件的立场:这些措施可以提供有用的系统级信号,但只有在谨慎解释的情况下,有强大的数据基础设施支持,并有患者报告的见解作为补充。推进测量将需要综合方法,更好地捕捉对患者和护理人员重要的东西。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Expectations
Health Expectations 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
9.40%
发文量
251
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including: • Person-centred care and quality improvement • Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management • Public perceptions of health services • Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting • Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation • Empowerment and consumerism • Patients'' role in safety and quality • Patient and public role in health services research • Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书