Nursing-Sensitive Indicators in Ambulatory Care.

Ambulatory nursing care can be difficult to comprehend in all its complexity. In August 2013, the American Academy of Ambulatory Care Nursing commissioned a task force to identify nursing-sensitive indicators specific to ambulatory care settings. Given the great variation in settings, staff mix, patient populations, role dimensions, skill sets, documentation systems, and resources, determining metrics that apply across the entire continuum of care is a daunting task. However, it is incumbent upon nurse leaders to define the metrics that will promote the value of the registered nurse in ambulatory practice and care coordination. Once initial measures are identified, piloted, and validated, the infrastructure can be created for ongoing benchmarking and collaboration. The long-term goal is to leverage professional nursing practice, based in the ambulatory care setting, to improve quality, safety, and cost in health care.

Enabling a survey of primary care to measure the health care experiences of adults with disabilities.

PURPOSE: To enable an existing survey on primary care so that it can be used to assess the healthcare experiences reported by adults living with disabilities, and to evaluate its properties. METHODS: Mixed-methods study. We first identified content areas for measurement as compared to the items in the existing instrument and then developed new candidate items. Cognitive testing was conducted in English and Spanish. After revisions to the primary care instrument based on the cognitive testing results, the draft-enabled instrument was field-tested by mail with telephone follow-up, in English and Spanish. RESULTS: Consumer focus groups and a technical expert panel identified eight content areas in primary care that are particularly important to maximise function and well-being of people of with disabilities. Cognitive testing also revealed serious problems with several items in the existing survey when answered by or about people with disabilities. Field testing yielded 1086 surveys, of which 40% were completed by a proxy respondent. Learning disabilities were reported by 38% of respondents. Item non-response for revised and new questions was less than 4%. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to enable a survey of primary care and its administration. Survey administration instructions should be modified to accommodate proxy respondents. The screener item to identify people with mobility impairments on walking a distance should be replaced with walking for 6 min. Adding questions from the American Community Survey about functional ability will allow survey sponsors to identify respondents with various limitations, and to compare their experiences to those of people with no limitations. Careful development and testing of the items with input from interested parties throughout the design and testing stages yielded a survey with good psychometric properties and content validity in multiple languages. Health delivery systems can use the survey data to identify clinical processes needing improvement to provide high quality care for people with disabilities.

Case-mix adjustment and enabled reporting of the health care experiences of adults with disabilities.

OBJECTIVES: To develop activity limitation clusters for case-mix adjustment of health care ratings and as a population profiler, and to develop a cognitively accessible report of statistically reliable quality and access measures comparing the health care experiences of adults with and without disabilities, within and across health delivery organizations. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Three California Medicaid health care organizations. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N = 1086) of working age enrolled for at least 1 year in Medicaid because of disability. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Principal components analysis created 4 clusters of activity limitations that we used to characterize case mix. We identified and calculated 28 quality measures using responses from a proposed enabled version of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) survey. We calculated scores for overall care as the weighted mean of the case-mix adjusted ratings. RESULTS: Disability caused a greater bias on health plan ratings and specialist ratings than did demographic factors. Proxy respondents rated care the same as self-respondents. Telephone and mail administration were equivalent for service reports, but telephone respondents tended to offer more positive global ratings. Plan-level reliability estimates for new composites on shared decision making and advice on healthy living are .79 and .87, respectively. Plan-level reliability estimates for a new composite measure on family planning did not discriminate between health plans because respondents rated all health plans poorly. Approximately 125 respondents per site are necessary to detect group differences. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported activity limitations incorporating standard questions from the American Community Survey can be used to create a disability case-mix index and to construct profiles of a population's activity limitations. The enabled comparative report, which we call the Assessment of Health Plans and Providers by People with Activity Limitations, is more cognitively accessible than typical CAHPS report templates for state Medicaid plans. The CAHPS Medicaid reporting tools may provide misleading ratings of health plan and physician quality by people with disabilities because the mean ratings do not account for systematic biases associated with disability. More testing on larger populations would help to quantify the strength of various reporting biases.

Identifying and classifying people with disabilities using claims data: further development of the Access Risk Classification System (ARCS) algorithm.

BACKGROUND: The goal was to develop an inexpensive and rapid method for health systems to classify people by their ability to access routine care. We sought to refine and revalidate a software algorithm, the Access Risk Classification System (ARCS), using automated claims data to classify people into one of four categories based on the probable need for care coordination or health system accommodations. METHODS: Through simple linkages of longitudinal claims data, the algorithm assigned individuals into one of four categories. We evaluated the algorithm's sensitivity and specificity by comparing the predicted classification against self-report. The validation results were used to refine the algorithm. RESULTS: When we classified people into two groups of any degree of functional limitation or no limitation, the sensitivity was 91% and the specificity was 26%. When classified into two groups of those needing proactive care coordination and all others, sensitivity was 83% and specificity was 30%. Thus, overall correct classification ranges from good to fair. CONCLUSIONS: The algorithm utilizes claims databases readily available to many health claims payers. Adding Healthcare Common Procedural Coding System claims and number of prescriptions improves correct classification rates. Even when the claims data are incomplete and imprecise, ARCSv2 (ARCS version 2) can be used as an initial screen to identify people who should be included in the calculation of quality measures and who should be surveyed for consumer reported quality measurement. When using four classification categories, 69% of the people with the greatest risk and need for care coordination are correctly identified. ARCS can increase the correct identification of people with disabilities by 400% over random digit dialing of a general population. However, the ARCS should be further refined and validated in a larger population that includes more men with disabilities, children, and people without disabilities before it is used to compute quality measures using administrative data. Correct classification might be improved by incorporating information on comorbidities and specific medication categories.

Innovations in disability care coordination organizations: integrating primary care and behavioral health clinical systems.

Specialized programs have emerged to coordinate care for Medicaid beneficiaries with disabilities who commonly have multiple, complex medical and psychosocial comorbidities. These specialized programs, disability care coordination organizations (DCCOs), center around nurse and social worker care managers who function largely in integrated or collaborative care management models. Two programs extended the traditional DCCO roles of care manager, colocating them in primary care and behavioral clinical settings with results beneficial to care managers, providers, and patients. These initiatives required overcoming the challenges found among differing specialty cultures, insufficient organizational supports, and consumer behaviors that commonly defeat their self-management of their health and life needs. The outcomes are encouraging to care management practice, to primary care and behavioral health providers, the systems in which they practice, and to DCCO beneficiaries. The nurse and social worker care managers and the providers in both systems built positive professional relationships, gained insights into the knowledge and practices of specialties different from their own, and leveraged each other's expertise to the benefit of patients. Organizational systems gained insights into the supports needed to achieve optimal integration and comprehensive care. Outcomes for patients were significant: enhanced abilities to manage their complex health and life situations and realize improved health states.

Disability care coordination organizations: improving health and function in people with disabilities.

Disability care coordination organizations (DCCOs) combine attributes of the medical home model and community nursing. Teams of nurses and social workers collaborate with the client to arrange disability-competent medical and social services. This article synthesizes observational findings from site visits to approximately half of the DCCOs operating in 2004. DCCOs have 6 core clinical activities: comprehensive assessment; self-directed, person-centered planning; health visit support; centralized medical-social record; community resource engagement; and constant communication. We also identified 3 core business competencies: service coordination, patient education/behavioral modification, and continuous enhancement of disability competency. Each DCCO started as a new company rather than as a product line of an existing business, and each included the target population in the design stage. Most DCCOs contract with state Medicaid agencies under a prepaid capitation arrangement, and some also enroll Medicare beneficiaries. Capitated DCCOs retain cost savings and may be financially stronger than fee-for-service DCCOs. Although studies suggest that DCCOs improve coordination and clinical outcomes while reducing costs, the current evidence has not been peer reviewed.

Expanding American Nurses Association nursing quality indicators to community-based practices.

Continuing its commitment to patient care quality, the American Nurses Association appointed a committee in 1997 to expand nursing-sensitive quality indicators beyond acute care. This article is the final report describing the processes used to identify a core set of community-based quality indicators relevant to nurses across the care continuum and identifies next steps. The indicator categories are (a) change in symptom severity, (b) strength of the therapeutic alliance, (c) utilization of services, (d) client satisfaction, (e) risk reduction, (f) increase in protective factors, and (g) level of function/functional status. Potential indicators requiring further research and development are also described.