Nurse care manager contribution to quality of care in a dual-eligible special needs plan

Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Healthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients.

METHODS

This systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups.

RESULTS

The search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types.

DISCUSSION

We identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.

Development and validation of process indicators of the quality of nursing care for the elderly

Introduction: Quality indicators are important for service management. However, in primary care, there is a shortage of indicators specifically regarding the elderly population. Objective: To build and validate process indicators of the quality of nursing care for the elderly. Methods: This is a methodological research, and the steps are based on proposals from the National Database of Nursing Quality Indicators and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The indicators were evaluated according to the criteria of face validity, terminology, necessity, content validity, reliability, viability, utility, and usability. Nine nurses participated in the expert panel, including professionals who provided primary care assistance, researchers in the area of health care for the elderly, and members of Brazilian health-related organizations. The Adequacy Method developed by Research and Development at the University of California Los Angeles was used. Data were analyzed using the median, Content Validity Index, and Kappa. Results: Twenty-two indicators were validated. All measures were considered appropriate, with content validity, and reached an agreement on terminology and necessity. Of the 22 indicators, only four were considered unavailable and impractical to collect. Thirteen indicators were not considered useful for determining the reception of financial incentives. In the assessment of usability to compare public reports, six indicators had relatively low scores. Conclusion: Indicators can contribute to monitoring the quality of care for the elderly, identifying opportunities for improvement in actions performed by nurses in primary care.

Nursing Care Coordination for Patients with Complex Needs in Primary Healthcare: A Scoping Review

Introduction:

Millions of people worldwide have complex health and social care needs. Care coordination for these patients is a core dimension of integrated care and a key responsibility for primary healthcare. Registered nurses play a substantial role in care coordination. This review draws on previous theoretical work and provides a synthesis of care coordination interventions as operationalized by nurses for complex patient populations in primary healthcare.

Methodology:

We followed Arksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for scoping reviews. We carried out a systematic search across CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus and ProQuest. Only empirical studies were included. We performed a thematic analysis using deductive (the American Nurses Association Framework) and inductive approaches. Findings were discussed with a group of experts.

Results:

Thirty-four articles were included in the synthesis. Overall, nursing care coordination activities were synthesized into three categories: those targeting the patient, family and caregivers; those targeting health and social care teams; and those bringing together patients and professionals. Interpersonal communication and information transfer emerged as cross-cutting activities that support every other activity. Our results also brought to light the nurses’ contribution to care coordination efforts for patients with complex needs as well as critical components that should be present in every care coordination intervention for this clientele. These include an increased intensity and frequency of activities, relational continuity of care, and home visits.

Conclusion:

With the growing complexity of patient’s needs, efforts must be directed towards enabling the primary healthcare level to effectively play its substantial role in care coordination. This includes finding primary care employment models that would facilitate multidisciplinary teamwork and the delivery of integrated care, and guarantee the delivery of intensive yet efficient coordinated care.

A research agenda for promoting continence for people living with dementia in the community: Recommendations based on a critical review and expert-by-experience opinion

Aims and objectives

To identify research undertaken in the last decade addressing continence for people living with dementia (PLWD) in the community. To highlight gaps and develop recommendations for future research, taking into account the experiences and priorities of PLWD, caregivers and healthcare professionals.

Methods

A critical review with an Expert Review Group (ERG) comprising researchers, PLWD and facing continence issues, caregivers and other professional stakeholders. Findings are reported in line with the COREQ and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklists.

Background

Caregivers rate the independent use of the toilet as the most important activity for PLWD to retain. However, in 2009 a review identified shortfalls in knowledge and praxis around promoting continence and managing incontinence for PLWD in the community. As absolute numbers of people with dementia are predicted to increase, it is imperative to examine whether these deficits have been addressed.

Results

Of 3,563 records identified, 57 full‐text articles were reviewed. The ERG developed a conceptual model to summarise research evidence according to the extent of the challenge (neuropathology and clinicopathology, prevalence and incidence), gateways to continence services, effectiveness of interventions, outcomes and the potential influences of personal resources, socio‐cultural factors and environmental contexts.

Conclusions

Research on (in)continence for PLWD in the community is under‐developed and has not increased substantially over the last decade. ERG recommendations for future research included user involvement to identify appropriate quality indicators to assess the effectiveness of interventions.

Relevance to clinical practice

There is insufficient evidence on which to base decisions on continence care for PLWD in the community. Omission from continence care guidelines has the effect of marginalising and silencing this population. User involvement in clinical research and developing practice guidelines has the potential for positive systems change.

Quality indicators for community care for older people: A systematic review

Background

Health care systems that succeed in preventing long term care and hospital admissions of frail older people may substantially save on their public spending. The key might be found in high-quality care in the community. Quality Indicators (QIs) of a sufficient methodological level are a prerequisite to monitor, compare, and improve care quality. This systematic review identified existing QIs for community care for older people and assessed their methodological quality.

Methods

Relevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and selected by two reviewers independently. Eligible publications described the development or application of QIs to assess the quality of community care for older people. Information about the QIs, the study sample, and specific setting was extracted. The methodological quality of the QI sets was assessed with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A score of 50% or higher on a domain was considered to indicate high methodological quality.

Results

Searches resulted in 25 included articles, describing 17 QI sets with 567 QIs. Most indicators referred to care processes (80%) and measured clinical issues (63%), mainly about follow-up, monitoring, examinations and treatment. About two-third of the QIs focussed on specific disease groups. The methodological quality of the indicator sets varied considerably. The highest overall level was achieved on the domain ‘Additional evidence, formulation and usage’ (51%), followed by ‘Scientific evidence’ (39%) and ‘Stakeholder involvement’ (28%).

Conclusion

A substantial number of QIs is available to assess the quality of community care for older people. However, generic QIs, measuring care outcomes and non-clinical aspects are relatively scarce and most QI sets do not meet standards of high methodological quality. This study can support policy makers and clinicians to navigate through a large number of QIs and select QIs for their purposes.

PROSPERO Registration: 2014:CRD42014007199

Effect of Physician Delegation to Other Healthcare Providers on the Quality of Care for Geriatric Conditions

The quality of care of older adults in the United States has been consistently shown to be inadequate. This gap between recommended and actual care provides an opportunity to improve the value of health care for older adults. Prior work from the Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elders (ACOVE) investigators first defined, and then sought to improve, clinical practice for common geriatric conditions. A critical component of the ACOVE intervention for practice improvement was an emphasis on the delegation of specific care processes, but the independent effect of delegation on the quality of care has not been evaluated. This study analyzed the pooled results of prior ACOVE projects from 1998 to 2010. Totaled, these studies included 4,776 individuals aged 65 and older of mixed demographic backgrounds and 16,204 ACOVE quality indicators (QIs) for three geriatric conditions: falls, urinary incontinence, and dementia. In unadjusted analyses, QI pass probabilities were 0.36 for physician-performed tasks, 0.55 for nurse practitioner (NP)-, physician assistant (PA)-, and registered nurse (RN)-performed tasks; and 0.61 for medical assistant- and licensed vocational nurse-performed tasks. In multiply adjusted models, the independent pass-probability effect of delegation to NPs, PAs, and RNs was 1.37 (P = .05). These findings suggest that delegation of selected tasks to nonphysician healthcare providers is associated with higher quality of care for these geriatric conditions in community practices and supports the value of interdisciplinary team management for common outpatient conditions in older adults.