Is clinical coordination across care levels different according to the secondary care medical speciality? Results from the Catalan health system.

BACKGROUND: Despite the scarce evidence, some studies suggest that cross-level clinical coordination may vary among secondary care (SC) doctors, influenced by their speciality and organisational model, including degree of decentralisation to primary care (PC). The aim was to determine the differences in experience and perception of cross-level clinical coordination and related factors according to the SC doctor's speciality in the Catalan health system. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, based on an on-line survey using the COORDENA-CAT questionnaire, to SC doctors (n = 1666). Descriptive and multivariate analysis were used to compare five groups of SC specialities (decentralised, hospital-based, internists/geriatricians, gynaecologist, and paediatricians), for experience, perception and factors related to coordination. RESULTS: When comparing with decentralised specialities, hospital-based specialities and internal medicine/geriatrics reported lower care consistency and follow up across levels, while gynaecology and paediatrics, higher accessibility. General perception of cross-level coordination was lower in hospital-based specialities (PR:0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.89) and higher in gynaecology (PR:1.36, 95% CI 1.18-1.56). Moreover, hospital-based specialities reported a lower use of some coordination mechanisms and lower knowledge of the primary care doctors (PR:0.42, 95% CI 0.23-0.72), while gynaecology a higher knowledge (PR:2.04, 95% CI 1.22-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Results show differences in experience, perception of coordination, organisational and interactional factors across specialities. These differences may be explained by their complexity, coordination needs and organisational model. Further research is needed to clarify and understand the causes of such differences and the particular needs of coordination of each speciality to identify strategies to improve cross-level clinical coordination.

¿La integración de la gestión de servicios sanitarios mejora la coordinación clínica? Experiencia en Cataluña / Does the integration of health services management improve clinical coordination? Experience in Catalonia

Objetivo: Analizar la experiencia y la percepción de coordinación clínica entre niveles asistenciales y los factores relacionados, organizativos y de interacción entre profesionales, según el tipo de integración de la gestión de los servicios de salud del área en Cataluña. Método: Estudio transversal basado en una encuesta on-line mediante autoadministración del cuestionario COORDENA-CAT (octubre-diciembre 2017). Población de estudio: médicos/as de atención primaria y especializada de agudos y media y larga estancia del sistema sanitario catalán. Muestra: 3308 médicos/as. Variables de resultado: experiencia y percepción de coordinación clínica, conocimiento y uso de mecanismos de coordinación y factores relacionados. Variables explicativas: área según tipo de gestión (integrada, semiintegrada, no integrada), sociodemográficas, laborales y de actitud. Análisis descriptivos por tipo de área y multivariados mediante regresión de Poisson robusta. Resultados: Se observaron mejores resultados de experiencia y percepción de coordinación clínica en áreas integradas que en semiintegradas, en especial en la transferencia de información y el seguimiento adecuado entre niveles. En cambio, no se encontraron diferencias entre áreas integradas y no integradas en la experiencia, aunque sí en la percepción de coordinación y algunos factores. Algunos problemas identificados son comunes a todas las áreas, como la accesibilidad entre niveles. Conclusiones: Las pocas diferencias entre áreas integradas y no integradas parecen indicar que la integración de la gestión puede facilitar la coordinación clínica, pero no es condición suficiente. Las diferencias con áreas semiintegradas parecen indicar la necesidad de promover la cooperación entre todos los proveedores de un territorio, con objetivos y mecanismos de coordinación comunes, para evitar desigualdades en la calidad asistencial. (AU)

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. (AU)

[Does the integration of health services management improve clinical coordination? Experience in Catalonia]. / ¿La integración de la gestión de servicios sanitarios mejora la coordinación clínica? Experiencia en Cataluña.

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.

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.