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.
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.