Doctors’ opinions on clinical coordination between primary and secondary care in the Catalan healthcare system

Lessons learnt from the process of designing care coordination interventions through participatory action research in public healthcare networks of six Latin American countries

BACKGROUND

The participation of health professionals in designing interventions is considered vital to effective implementation, yet in areas such as clinical coordination is rarely promoted and evaluated. This study, part of Equity-LA II, aims to analyse the design process of interventions to improve clinical coordination, taking a participatory-action-research (PAR) approach, in healthcare networks of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico and Uruguay. This participatory process was planned in four phases, led by a local steering committee (LSC): (1) dissemination of problem analysis results and creation of professionals' platform, (2) selection of problems and intervention (3) intervention design and planning (4) adjustments after evaluation of first implementation stage.

METHODS

A descriptive qualitative study based on documentary analysis, using a topic guide, was conducted in each intervention network. Documents produced regarding the intervention design process were selected. Thematic content analysis was conducted, generating mixed categories taken from the topic guide and identified from data. Main categories were LSC characteristics, type of design process (phases, participants' roles, methods) and associated difficulties, coordination problems and interventions selected.

RESULTS

LSCs of similar composition (managers, professionals and researchers) were established, with increasing membership in Chile and high turnover in Argentina, Colombia and Mexico. Following results dissemination and selection of problems and interventions (more participatory in Chile and Colombia: 200-479 participants), the interventions were designed and planned, resulting in three different types of processes: (1) short initial design with adjustments after first implementation stage, in Colombia, Brazil and Mexico; (2) longer, more participatory process, with multiple cycles of action/reflection and pilot tests, in Chile; (3) open-ended design for ongoing adaptation, in Argentina and Uruguay. Professionals' time and the political cycle were the main barriers to participation. The clinical coordination problem selected was limited communication between primary and secondary care doctors. To address it, through discussions guided by context and feasibility criteria, interventions based on mutual feedback were selected.

CONCLUSIONS

As expected in a flexible PAR process, its rollout differed across countries in participation and PAR cycles. Results show that PAR can help to design interventions adapted to context and offers lessons that can be applied in other contexts.

A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Decision Support Systems for Healthcare Referral Strategies

BACKGROUND

The referral process is an important research focus because of the potential consequences of delays, especially for patients with serious medical conditions that need immediate care, such as those with metastatic cancer. Thus, a systematic literature review of recent and influential manuscripts is critical to understanding the current methods and future directions in order to improve the referral process.

METHODS

A hybrid bibliometric-structured review was conducted using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Searches were conducted of three databases, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, in addition to the references from the eligible papers. The papers were considered to be eligible if they were relevant English articles or reviews that were published from January 2010 to June 2021. The searches were conducted using three groups of keywords, and bibliometric analysis was performed, followed by content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 163 papers that were published in impactful journals between January 2010 and June 2021 were selected. These papers were then reviewed, analyzed, and categorized as follows: descriptive analysis (n = 77), cause and effect (n = 12), interventions (n = 50), and quality management (n = 24). Six future research directions were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal attention was given to the study of the primary referral of blood cancer cases versus those with solid cancer types, which is a gap that future studies should address. More research is needed in order to optimize the referral process, specifically for suspected hematological cancer patients.

[Does the integration of health services management improve clinical coordination? Experience in Catalonia]

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the experience and perception of clinical coordination across care levels and doctor's organizational and interactional related factors, according to the type of management integration of the healthcare services of the area, in Catalonia.

METHOD

Cross-sectional study based on an online survey by self-administration of the questionnaire COORDENA-CAT.

DATA COLLECTION

October-December 2017.

STUDY POPULATION

primary and secondary care (acute and long-term care) doctors of the public Catalan health system.

SAMPLE

3308 doctors.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

experience and perception of clinical coordination, knowledge and use of coordination mechanisms and organizational and interactional factors; explanatory variables: area according to type of management (integrated, semi-integrated, non-integrated), socio-demographic, employment characteristics and attitude toward work. Descriptive analysis by type of area and multivariate analysis by robust Poisson regression.

RESULTS

Better clinical coordination was observed in integrated areas compared to those semi-integrated, mainly in relation to information transfer, adequate follow-up and perception of coordination in the area. No differences were found between integrated and non-integrated areas in the clinical coordination experience, although there were differences in perception and some related factors. There are common problems across areas, such as accessibility to secondary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Few differences were found between integrated and non-integrated areas, revealing that management integration may facilitate clinical coordination but is not enough. Differences with semi-integrated areas indicate the need to promote cooperation formulas between all the providers of the territory, with common objectives and coordination mechanisms, in order to avoid inequalities in quality of care.

Non-systematic review: Correspondence quality and interoperability between family physicians and hospital clinicians

BACKGROUND

Medical correspondence between physicians working in the community and in hospital is paramount to provide continuity of care, but there is no agreement on what constitutes a good quality letter, not even interest by some clinicians on this interface. Information flow could be faster electronically rather than in paper, but is content improving? What defines a good letter?

AIM

(a) To assess what information should be shared between family doctors and hospital physicians and could it be shared better. (b) To assess the possibility of linking the sections of the letter to SNOMED-CT codes to improve interoperability.

RESULTS

Authors vary regarding what is to be included in communications, and as they also have different needs among services, it creates a very long list of possible items to consider. Standardised templates with their corresponding SNOMED-CT codes are presented.

CONCLUSION

Standardised correspondence could improve continuity of care. Appropriately coded it could facilitate the information sharing and the data manipulation required to provide an adequate provision of services among primary care or family physicians and hospitals or secondary care organisations. It could also serve as a tool to assess clinicians' performance.

Understanding How to Improve the Use of Clinical Coordination Mechanisms between Primary and Secondary Care Doctors: Clues from Catalonia

Clinical coordination between primary (PC) and secondary care (SC) is a challenge for health systems, and clinical coordination mechanisms (CCM) play an important role in the interface between care levels. It is therefore essential to understand the elements that may hinder their use. This study aims to analyze the level of use of CCM, the difficulties and factors associated with their use, and suggestions for improving clinical coordination. A cross-sectional online survey-based study using the questionnaire COORDENA-CAT was conducted with 3308 PC and SC doctors in the Catalan national health system. Descriptive bivariate analysis and logistic regression models were used. Shared Electronic Medical Records were the most frequently used CCM, especially by PC doctors, and the one that presented most difficulties in use, mostly related to technical problems. Some factors positively associated with frequent use of various CCM were: working full-time in integrated areas, or with local hospitals. Interactional and organizational factors contributed to a greater extent among SC doctors. Suggestions for improving clinical coordination were similar between care levels and related mainly to the improvement of CCM. In an era where management tools are shifting towards technology-based CCM, this study can help to design strategies to improve their effectiveness.

Do primary and secondary care doctors have a different experience and perception of cross-level clinical coordination? Results of a cross-sectional study in the Catalan National Health System (Spain)

BACKGROUND

Clinical coordination across care levels is a priority for health systems around the world, especially for those based on primary health care. The aim of this study is to analyse the degree of clinical information and clinical management coordination across healthcare levels in the Catalan national health system experienced by primary (PC) and secondary care (SC) doctors and explore the associated factors.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study based on an online survey using the self-administered questionnaire COORDENA-CAT.

DATA COLLECTION

October-December 2017.

STUDY POPULATION

PC and SC (acute and long term) doctors of the Catalan national health system. Participation rate was 21%, with a sample of 3308 doctors.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

cross-level clinical information coordination, clinical management coordination, and perception of cross-level coordination within the area. Explanatory variables: socio-demographic, employment characteristics, attitude towards job, type of area (according to type of hospital and management), interactional factors, organizational factors and knowledge of existing coordination mechanisms. Stratification variable: level of care. Descriptive and multivariate analysis by logistic regression.

RESULTS

The degree of clinical coordination experienced across levels of care was high for both PC and SC doctors, although PC doctors experienced greater exchange and use of information and SC doctors experienced greater consistency of care. However, only 32.13% of PC and 35.72% of SC doctors found that patient care was coordinated across care levels within their area. In both levels of care, knowing the doctors of the other level, working in an area where the same entity manages SC and majority of PC, and holding joint clinical case conferences were factors positively associated with perceiving high levels of clinical coordination. Other associated factors were specific to the care level, such as being informed of a patient's discharge from hospital for PC doctors, or trusting in the clinical skills of the other care level for SC doctors.

CONCLUSIONS

Interactional and organizational factors are positively associated with perceiving high levels of clinical coordination. Introducing policies to enhance such factors can foster clinical coordination between different health care levels. The COORDENA questionnaire allows us to identify fields for improvement in clinical coordination.

Relational continuity with primary and secondary care doctors: a qualitative study of perceptions of users of the Catalan national health system

Background

In the current context of increasingly fragmented healthcare systems where patients are seen by multiple doctors in different settings, patients’ relational continuity with one doctor is regaining relevance; however little is known about relational continuity with specialists. The aim of this study is to explore perceptions of relational continuity with primary care and secondary care doctors, its influencing factors and consequences from the viewpoint of users of the Catalan national health system (Spain).

Methods

We conducted a descriptive-interpretative qualitative study using a two-stage theoretical sample; (i) contexts: three healthcare areas in the Catalan national health system with differing characteristics; (ii) informants: users 18 years or older attended to at both care levels. Sample size (n = 49) was reached by saturation. Data were collected by individual semi-structured interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed. A thematic content analysis was carried out segmenting data by study area, and leaving room for new categories to emerge from the data.

Results

Patients across the areas studied generally experienced consistency of primary care doctors (PCD), alongside some inconsistency of specialists. Consistency of specialists did not seem to be relevant to some patients when their clinical information was shared and used. Patients who experienced consistency and frequent visits with the same PCD or specialist described and valued having established an ongoing relationship characterised by personal trust and mutual accumulated knowledge. Identified consequences were diverse and included, for example, facilitated diagnosis or improved patient-doctor communication. The ascription to a PCD, a health system-related factor, facilitated relational continuity with the PCD, whereas organizational factors (for instance, the size of the primary care centre) favoured consistency of PCD and specialists. Doctor-related factors (for example, high technical competence or commitment to patient care) particulary fostered the development of an ongoing relationship.

Conclusions

Consistency of doctors differs depending on the care level as does the relevance attributed to it. Most influencing factors can be applied to both care levels and might be addressed by healthcare managers to foster relational continuity. More research is needed to fully understand the relevance patients assign to relational continuity with specialists.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3042-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Doctors' opinion on the contribution of coordination mechanisms to improving clinical coordination between primary and outpatient secondary care in the Catalan national health system

BACKGROUND

Clinical coordination is considered a health policy priority as its absence can lead to poor quality of care and inefficiency. A key challenge is to identify which strategies should be implemented to improve coordination. The aim is to analyse doctors' opinions on the contribution of mechanisms to improving clinical coordination between primary and outpatient secondary care and the factors influencing their use.

METHODS

A qualitative descriptive study in three healthcare networks of the Catalan national health system. A two-stage theoretical sample was designed: in the first stage, networks with different management models were selected; in the second, primary care (n = 26) and secondary care (n = 24) doctors. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Final sample size was reached by saturation. A thematic content analysis was conducted, segmented by network and care level.

RESULTS

With few differences across networks, doctors identified similar mechanisms contributing to clinical coordination: 1) shared EMR facilitating clinical information transfer and uptake; 2) mechanisms enabling problem-solving communication and agreement on clinical approaches, which varied across networks (joint clinical case conferences, which also promote mutual knowledge and training of primary care doctors; virtual consultations through EMR and email); and 3) referral protocols and use of the telephone facilitating access to secondary care after referrals. Doctors identified organizational (insufficient time, incompatible timetables, design of mechanisms) and professional factors (knowing each other, attitude towards collaboration, concerns over misdiagnosis) that influence the use of mechanisms.

DISCUSSION

Mechanisms that most contribute to clinical coordination are feedback mechanisms, that is those based on mutual adjustment, that allow doctors to exchange information and communicate. Their use might be enhanced by focusing on adequate working conditions, mechanism design and creating conditions that promote mutual knowledge and positive attitudes towards collaboration.