初级保健中高危患者采用和不采用护理管理工具的一线观点。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Michael McGowan , Danielle Rose , Monica Paez , Gregory Stewart , Susan Stockdale
{"title":"初级保健中高危患者采用和不采用护理管理工具的一线观点。","authors":"Michael McGowan ,&nbsp;Danielle Rose ,&nbsp;Monica Paez ,&nbsp;Gregory Stewart ,&nbsp;Susan Stockdale","doi":"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2023.100719","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>Population health management tools (PHMTs) embedded within </span>electronic health records (EHR) could improve management of high-risk patients and reduce costs associated with potentially avoidable </span>emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Adoption of PHMTs across the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been variable and previous research suggests that understaffed </span>primary care (PC) teams might not be using the tools.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective content analysis of open-text responses (n = 1804) from the VA’s 2018 national primary care personnel survey to, 1) identify system-level and individual-level factors associated with why clinicians are not using the tools, and 2) to document clinicians’ recommendations to improve tool adoption.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found three themes pertaining to low adoption and/or tool use: 1) IT burden and administrative tasks (e.g., manually mailing letters to patients), 2) staffing shortages (e.g., nurses covering multiple teams), and 3) no training or difficulty using the tools (e.g., not knowing how to access the tools or use the data). Frontline clinician recommendations included automating some tasks, reconfiguring team roles to shift administrative work away from providers and nurses, consolidating PHMTs into a centralized, easily accessible repository, and providing training.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Healthcare system-level factors (staffing) and individual-level factors (lack of training) can limit adoption of PHMTs that could be useful for reducing costs and improving patient outcomes. Future research, including qualitative interviews with clinicians who use/don’t use the tools, could help develop interventions to address barriers to adoption.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Shifting more administrative tasks to clerical staff would free up clinician time for population health management but may not be possible for understaffed PC teams. Additionally, healthcare systems may be able to increase PHMT use by making them more easily accessible through the electronic health record and providing training in their use.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29963,"journal":{"name":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","volume":"11 4","pages":"Article 100719"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Frontline perspectives on adoption and non-adoption of care management tools for high-risk patients in primary care\",\"authors\":\"Michael McGowan ,&nbsp;Danielle Rose ,&nbsp;Monica Paez ,&nbsp;Gregory Stewart ,&nbsp;Susan Stockdale\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.hjdsi.2023.100719\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span><span><span>Population health management tools (PHMTs) embedded within </span>electronic health records (EHR) could improve management of high-risk patients and reduce costs associated with potentially avoidable </span>emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Adoption of PHMTs across the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been variable and previous research suggests that understaffed </span>primary care (PC) teams might not be using the tools.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a retrospective content analysis of open-text responses (n = 1804) from the VA’s 2018 national primary care personnel survey to, 1) identify system-level and individual-level factors associated with why clinicians are not using the tools, and 2) to document clinicians’ recommendations to improve tool adoption.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We found three themes pertaining to low adoption and/or tool use: 1) IT burden and administrative tasks (e.g., manually mailing letters to patients), 2) staffing shortages (e.g., nurses covering multiple teams), and 3) no training or difficulty using the tools (e.g., not knowing how to access the tools or use the data). Frontline clinician recommendations included automating some tasks, reconfiguring team roles to shift administrative work away from providers and nurses, consolidating PHMTs into a centralized, easily accessible repository, and providing training.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Healthcare system-level factors (staffing) and individual-level factors (lack of training) can limit adoption of PHMTs that could be useful for reducing costs and improving patient outcomes. Future research, including qualitative interviews with clinicians who use/don’t use the tools, could help develop interventions to address barriers to adoption.</p></div><div><h3>Implications</h3><p>Shifting more administrative tasks to clerical staff would free up clinician time for population health management but may not be possible for understaffed PC teams. Additionally, healthcare systems may be able to increase PHMT use by making them more easily accessible through the electronic health record and providing training in their use.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29963,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation\",\"volume\":\"11 4\",\"pages\":\"Article 100719\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076423000465\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Healthcare-The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213076423000465","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:嵌入电子健康记录(EHR)中的人群健康管理工具(PHMT)可以改善对高危患者的管理,并降低与可能避免的急诊就诊或住院相关的成本。退伍军人健康管理局(VA)对PHMT的采用一直存在变数,之前的研究表明,人手不足的初级保健(PC)团队可能没有使用这些工具。方法:我们对弗吉尼亚州2018年全国初级保健人员调查的开放文本回复(n=1804)进行了回顾性内容分析,以:1)确定与临床医生为什么不使用工具相关的系统层面和个人层面的因素,2)记录临床医生改进工具采用的建议。结果:我们发现三个主题与低采用率和/或工具使用率有关:1)IT负担和管理任务(例如,手动向患者邮寄信件),2)人员短缺(例如,护士覆盖多个团队),以及3)没有培训或难以使用工具(例如,不知道如何访问工具或使用数据)。一线临床医生的建议包括自动化一些任务,重新配置团队角色,将管理工作从提供者和护士转移出去,将PHMT整合到一个集中、易于访问的存储库中,并提供培训。结论:医疗保健系统层面的因素(人员配备)和个人层面的原因(缺乏培训)会限制PHMT的采用,这可能有助于降低成本和改善患者的预后。未来的研究,包括对使用/不使用这些工具的临床医生的定性访谈,可能有助于制定干预措施,以解决采用这些工具的障碍。影响:将更多的行政任务转移给文职人员将腾出临床医生的时间进行人口健康管理,但对于人手不足的PC团队来说,这可能是不可能的。此外,医疗保健系统可能能够通过电子健康记录更容易地访问PHMT并提供使用培训来增加PHMT的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Frontline perspectives on adoption and non-adoption of care management tools for high-risk patients in primary care

Background

Population health management tools (PHMTs) embedded within electronic health records (EHR) could improve management of high-risk patients and reduce costs associated with potentially avoidable emergency department visits or hospitalizations. Adoption of PHMTs across the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has been variable and previous research suggests that understaffed primary care (PC) teams might not be using the tools.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective content analysis of open-text responses (n = 1804) from the VA’s 2018 national primary care personnel survey to, 1) identify system-level and individual-level factors associated with why clinicians are not using the tools, and 2) to document clinicians’ recommendations to improve tool adoption.

Results

We found three themes pertaining to low adoption and/or tool use: 1) IT burden and administrative tasks (e.g., manually mailing letters to patients), 2) staffing shortages (e.g., nurses covering multiple teams), and 3) no training or difficulty using the tools (e.g., not knowing how to access the tools or use the data). Frontline clinician recommendations included automating some tasks, reconfiguring team roles to shift administrative work away from providers and nurses, consolidating PHMTs into a centralized, easily accessible repository, and providing training.

Conclusions

Healthcare system-level factors (staffing) and individual-level factors (lack of training) can limit adoption of PHMTs that could be useful for reducing costs and improving patient outcomes. Future research, including qualitative interviews with clinicians who use/don’t use the tools, could help develop interventions to address barriers to adoption.

Implications

Shifting more administrative tasks to clerical staff would free up clinician time for population health management but may not be possible for understaffed PC teams. Additionally, healthcare systems may be able to increase PHMT use by making them more easily accessible through the electronic health record and providing training in their use.

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
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: HealthCare: The Journal of Delivery Science and Innovation is a quarterly journal. The journal promotes cutting edge research on innovation in healthcare delivery, including improvements in systems, processes, management, and applied information technology. The journal welcomes submissions of original research articles, case studies capturing "policy to practice" or "implementation of best practices", commentaries, and critical reviews of relevant novel programs and products. The scope of the journal includes topics directly related to delivering healthcare, such as: ● Care redesign ● Applied health IT ● Payment innovation ● Managerial innovation ● Quality improvement (QI) research ● New training and education models ● Comparative delivery innovation
×
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