Effect of integrated community neurology on utilization, diagnostic testing, and access

Evidence on bringing specialised care to the primary level-effects on the Quadruple Aim and cost-effectiveness: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

To achieve the Quadruple Aim of improving population health, enhancing the patient experience of care, reducing costs and improving professional satisfaction requires reorganisation of health care. One way to accomplish this aim is by integrating healthcare services on different levels. This systematic review aims to determine whether it is cost-effective to bring a hospital specialist into primary care from the perspectives of commissioners, patients and professionals.

METHODS

The review follows the PRISMA guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus and EBSCO (CINAHL and Academic Search Ultimate) for the period of 1992-2022. In total, 4254 articles were found, and 21 original articles that reported on both quality and costs, were included. The JBI and ROBINS-I tools were used for quality appraisal. In data synthesis, vote counting and effect direction plots were used together with a sign test. The strength of evidence was evaluated with the GRADE.

RESULTS

Cost-effectiveness was only measured in two studies, and it remains unclear. Costs and cost drivers for commissioners were lower in the intervention in 52% of the studies; this proportion rose to 67% of the studies when cost for patients was also considered, while health outcomes, patient experience and professional satisfaction mostly improved but at least remained the same. Costs for the patient, where measured, were mainly lower in the intervention group. Professional satisfaction was reported in 48% of the studies; in 80% it was higher in the intervention group. In 24% of the studies, higher monetary costs were reported for commissioners, whereas the clinical outcomes, patient experience and costs for the patient mainly improved.

CONCLUSIONS

The cost-effectiveness of the hospital specialist in primary care model remains inconclusive. Only a few studies have comprehensively calculated costs, evaluating cost drivers. However, it seems that when the service is well organised and the population is large enough, the concept can be profitable for the commissioner also. From the patient's perspective, the model is superior and could even promote equity through improved access. Professional satisfaction is mostly higher compared to the traditional model. The certainty of evidence is very low for cost and low for quality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022325232, 12.4.2022.

Healthcare utilization impacts of an eConsult program for headache at an academic medical center

INTRODUCTION

Interprofessional consultations ("eConsults") can reduce healthcare utilization. However, the impact of eConsults on healthcare utilization remains poorly characterized among patients with headache.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective, 1:1 matched cohort study comparing patients evaluated for headache via eConsult request or in-person referral at the Mount Sinai Health System in New York. Groups were matched on clinical and demographic characteristics. Our primary outcome was one or more outpatient headache-related encounters in 6 months following referral date. Secondary outcomes included one or more all-cause outpatient neurology and headache-related emergency department (ED) encounters during the same period. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression to model associations between independent variables and outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 74 patients with headache eConsults who were matched to 74 patients with in-person referrals. Patients in the eConsult group were less likely to achieve the primary outcome (29.7% vs 62.2%, P < 0.0001) or have an all-cause outpatient neurology encounter (33.8% vs 79.7%, P < 0.0001) than patients in the comparison group. Both groups did not significantly differ by headache-related ED encounters. In multivariable analyses, patients in the eConsult group had significantly lower odds of having one or more headache-related or all-cause neurology encounters than patients in the comparison group (odds ratio (OR) 0.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1-0.6; OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.1-0.3, respectively).

DISCUSSION

In comparison to in-person referrals, eConsult requests for headache were associated with reduced likelihood of outpatient neurology encounters in the short-term but not with differential use of headache-related ED encounters. Larger-scale, prospective studies should validate our findings and assess patient outcomes.

Fast Neuro: A Care Model to Expedite Access to Neurology Clinic

Objective:

We set out to improve outpatient neurology access while reducing patient volume in the emergency department (ED) for nonemergent neurologic complaints.

Methods:

We created a rapid-access model, UCLA Fast Neuro, for patients referred from affiliated emergency departments to outpatient neurology, enabling appointments within 1 week of referral. Rapid-access appointments were also available to established neurology patients with urgent concerns. Fast Neuro was built to reduce nonemergent neurologic care in the ED, improve outpatient neurology access, and avoid use of inpatient neurology services for nonemergent consults. The volume of referrals and neurology consults from the ED and wait time from referral to appointment were measured. Surveys were conducted at 3 and 6 months to assess satisfaction with the model by all stakeholders.

Results:

From January 2019 through January 2021, 201 patients were referred to outpatient neurology through UCLA Fast Neuro. Wait time for an outpatient neurology appointment was reduced from the prior period by 82.5% (7.0±5.5 days vs 40±4.1 days). The number of nonemergent consults from the ED was reduced by 60% (4.1±1.9/month vs 10.3±1.7/month). Surveys showed wide acceptance of the new model with 92% of attending physicians and advanced practice providers and 89% of residents endorsing that UCLA Fast Neuro patients did not detract from their clinic experience.

Conclusions:

UCLA Fast Neuro improved emergency room throughput, reduced inpatient neurology consults from the ED, and decreased wait times for outpatient neurology appointments without using the inpatient neurology service for nonurgent consults. UCLA Fast Neuro was successful. Exploration of how to scale and implement the model of access more broadly is warranted.

Quality Improvement Metrics and Methods for Neurohospitalists

Measurement of clinical performance is largely driven by the requirements of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and accrediting bodies like The Joint Commission. Performance measures include length of stay, readmission rate, mortality rate, hospital-acquired complications, and stroke core measures. Hospital rankings also depend heavily on quality and patient safety indicators. Becoming facile with these measures can aid neurohospitalists in understanding their value and garnering resources to support improvement projects. Neurohospitalists can apply a structured A3-based method to define a clinical problem, perform systematic analysis, then design and test solutions to drive improved outcomes for patients with neurologic disease.

Effect of Integrated Gastroenterology Specialists in a Primary Care Setting: a Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Gastrointestinal (GI) complaints are common in primary care practices. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) may improve coordination and collaboration by facilitating coordination across healthcare settings and within the community, enhancing communication between providers, and focusing on quality of care delivery.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of integrated community gastroenterology specialists (ICS-GI) model within a large primary care practice.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort with propensity-matched historic controls.

PATIENTS

We identified 265 patients who had a visit with one of our ICS-GI specialists and matched them (1:2) to 530 similar patients seen prior to the implementation of the ICS-GI model.

MAIN MEASURES

Frequency of diagnostic testing for GI indications, visits to our outpatient GI referral practice, emergency department and hospital utilization, and time to access of specialty care for the whole population and by GI condition group.

KEY RESULTS

Patients seen in our ICS-GI model had similar outpatient care utilization (OR = 1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.4, p = 0.90), were more likely to have visits in primary care (OR OR=1.5, 95% CI 1.1-2.2, p = 0.02), and were less likely to have visits to our GI outpatient referral practice (OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.2-0.7, p < 0.0001). Condition-specific analyses show that all GI conditions experienced decreased visits to the outpatient GI referral practice outside of patients with GI neoplasm. Populations did not differ in emergency department, hospital, or diagnostic utilization.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed that an embedded specialist in primary care model is associated with improved care coordination without compromising patient safety. The PCMH could be extended to include subspecialty care.

Synchronous neurology–primary care collaboration in a medical home

Background

Synchronous collaboration as defined by a simultaneous encounter between primary care providers (PCPs), patients, and neurologists may improve access to neurologic expertise, care value, and satisfaction of PCPs and patients. We examined a series of synchronous collaborations and report outcomes, PCP satisfaction, downstream utilization, and illustrative case examples.

Methods

Within an outpatient collaborative primary care–neurology care model, we implemented synchronous video consultations from a central hub to satellite clinics while increasing availability of synchronous telephone and face-to-face collaboration. PCP experience was assessed by a postcollaboration survey. Individual cases were summarized. Clinical and utilization outcomes were assessed by a neurologist immediately after and by follow-up chart review.

Results

A total of 58 total synchronous collaborations were performed: 30 by telephone (52%), 18 face to face (31%), and 10 by video (17%) over 27 clinic half-days. The most frequent outcomes as assessed by the neurologist were reassurance of the PCP (23/58; 40%) and patient (22/59; 38%), and the neurologist changed the treatment plan (23/58; 40%). A subsequent face-to-face consultation was completed in 15% (6/58) of patients initially assessed by telephone or video. Test utilization was avoided in 40% (23/58). Unintended utilization occurred 9% (5/58). Most PCPs were very satisfied with the ease of access, quality of care, and reported high likelihood of subsequent use. PCPs perceived similar or less time spent during synchronous vs asynchronous collaboration and neurologist usually altered the testing (87.8%) and treatment plan (95.2%).

Conclusions

Synchronous collaboration between neurologists and PCPs may improve timely access to neurologic expertise, downstream utilization, and PCP satisfaction.

Development and Implementation of a Team-Based, Primary Care Delivery Model: Challenges and Opportunities

In this article, we describe the implementation of a team-based care model during the first 2 years (2016-2017) after Mayo Clinic designed and built a new primary care clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The clinic was configured to accommodate a team-based care model that included complete colocation of clinical staff to foster collaboration, designation of a physician team manager to support a physician to advanced practice practitioner ratio of 1:2, expanded roles for registered nurses, and integration of clinical pharmacists, behavioral health specialists, and community specialists; this model was designed to accommodate the growth of nonvisit care. We describe the implementation of this team-based care model and the key metrics that were tracked to assess performance related to the quadruple aim of improving population health, improving patient experience, reducing cost, and supporting care team's work life.

Neuroimaging utilization and findings in headache outpatients: Significance of red and yellow flags

Background

Neuroimaging for headache commonly exceeds published guideline recommendations and may be overutilized.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of all outpatient community patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester who underwent a neuroimaging study for a headache indication in 2015. We assessed the neuroimaging utilization pattern, clinical application of red flags, and concordance with neuroimaging guidelines.

Results

We identified 190 outpatients who underwent 304 neuroimaging studies for headache. The median age was 46.5 years (range 18–91 years), 65% were female, and most reported no prior history of headache (n = 97, 51%). A minority of patients had prior brain imaging studies (n = 44, 23%) and neurological consultations for headache (n = 29, 15%). Few studies were ordered after consultation with a neurologist (n = 14, 7%). Seventy-seven percent of patients were documented to have a “red flag” justifying the imaging study. Abnormal neuroimaging findings were found in 3.1% of patients with warning flags (5/161); carotid dissection (n = 3) and reversible cerebral vasoconstrictive syndrome (n = 2). An estimated 35% of patients were imaged against guidelines.

Conclusions

The prevalence of serious causes of headache in a community practice was low despite the presence of a documented red flag symptom. Inadequate understanding or application of red flags may be contributing to recommendations to image patients against current guidelines. Interventions to reduce unnecessary neuroimaging of patients with headache need to be designed and implemented.