基于索赔的护理措施的连续性是否反映了患者的观点?

Medical care research and review : MCRR Pub Date : 2014-04-01 Epub Date: 2013-10-24 DOI:10.1177/1077558713505909
Suzanne E Bentler, Robert O Morgan, Beth A Virnig, Fredric D Wolinsky
{"title":"基于索赔的护理措施的连续性是否反映了患者的观点?","authors":"Suzanne E Bentler,&nbsp;Robert O Morgan,&nbsp;Beth A Virnig,&nbsp;Fredric D Wolinsky","doi":"10.1177/1077558713505909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Continuity of care (CoC) is a cornerstone of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and one of the primary means for achieving health care quality. Despite decades of study, however, CoC remains difficult to define and quantify. To incorporate patient experiences into health reform evaluations, it is critical to determine if and how well CoC measures traditionally derived from administrative claims capture patient experiences. In this study, we used claims data and self-reported continuity experiences of 2,620 Medicare beneficiaries who completed the National Health and Health Services Use Questionnaire to compare 16 claims-based CoC indices to a multidimensional patient-reported CoC measure. Our results show that most claims-based CoC measures do not reflect older adults' perceptions of continuous patient-provider relationships, indicating that claims-based assessments should be used in tandem with patient reports for defining, quantifying, and evaluating CoC in health care delivery models. </p>","PeriodicalId":169610,"journal":{"name":"Medical care research and review : MCRR","volume":" ","pages":"156-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1077558713505909","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do claims-based continuity of care measures reflect the patient perspective?\",\"authors\":\"Suzanne E Bentler,&nbsp;Robert O Morgan,&nbsp;Beth A Virnig,&nbsp;Fredric D Wolinsky\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1077558713505909\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Continuity of care (CoC) is a cornerstone of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and one of the primary means for achieving health care quality. Despite decades of study, however, CoC remains difficult to define and quantify. To incorporate patient experiences into health reform evaluations, it is critical to determine if and how well CoC measures traditionally derived from administrative claims capture patient experiences. In this study, we used claims data and self-reported continuity experiences of 2,620 Medicare beneficiaries who completed the National Health and Health Services Use Questionnaire to compare 16 claims-based CoC indices to a multidimensional patient-reported CoC measure. Our results show that most claims-based CoC measures do not reflect older adults' perceptions of continuous patient-provider relationships, indicating that claims-based assessments should be used in tandem with patient reports for defining, quantifying, and evaluating CoC in health care delivery models. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":169610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical care research and review : MCRR\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"156-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1077558713505909\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medical care research and review : MCRR\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558713505909\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/10/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical care research and review : MCRR","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1077558713505909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

摘要

护理连续性(CoC)是以患者为中心的医疗之家(PCMH)的基石,也是实现卫生保健质量的主要手段之一。然而,尽管经过数十年的研究,CoC仍然难以定义和量化。要将患者经验纳入医疗改革评估,关键是要确定传统上源自行政索赔的CoC衡量是否以及在多大程度上反映了患者经验。在这项研究中,我们使用了2620名医疗保险受益人的索赔数据和自我报告的连续性经验,他们完成了国家健康和卫生服务使用问卷,以比较16个基于索赔的CoC指数和多维度的患者报告的CoC测量。我们的研究结果表明,大多数基于索赔的CoC测量并不能反映老年人对持续的患者-提供者关系的看法,这表明基于索赔的评估应该与患者报告一起使用,以定义、量化和评估卫生保健服务模式中的CoC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do claims-based continuity of care measures reflect the patient perspective?

Continuity of care (CoC) is a cornerstone of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) and one of the primary means for achieving health care quality. Despite decades of study, however, CoC remains difficult to define and quantify. To incorporate patient experiences into health reform evaluations, it is critical to determine if and how well CoC measures traditionally derived from administrative claims capture patient experiences. In this study, we used claims data and self-reported continuity experiences of 2,620 Medicare beneficiaries who completed the National Health and Health Services Use Questionnaire to compare 16 claims-based CoC indices to a multidimensional patient-reported CoC measure. Our results show that most claims-based CoC measures do not reflect older adults' perceptions of continuous patient-provider relationships, indicating that claims-based assessments should be used in tandem with patient reports for defining, quantifying, and evaluating CoC in health care delivery models.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信