Making it local: Beacon Communities use health information technology to optimize care management.

Care management aims to provide cost-effective, coordinated, non-duplicative care to improve care quality, population health, and reduce costs. The 17 communities receiving funding from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology through the Beacon Community Cooperative Agreement Program are leaders in building and strengthening their health information technology (health IT) infrastructure to provide more effective and efficient care management. This article profiles 6 Beacon Communities' health IT-enabled care management programs, highlighting the influence of local context on program strategy and design, and describing challenges, lessons learned, and policy implications for care delivery and payment reform. The unique needs (eg, disease burden, demographics), community partnerships, and existing resources and infrastructure all exerted significant influence on the overall priorities and design of each community's care management program. Though each Beacon Community needed to engage in a similar set of care management tasks--including patient identification, stratification, and prioritization; intervention; patient engagement; and evaluation--the contextual factors helped shape the specific strategies and tools used to carry out these tasks and achieve their objectives. Although providers across the country are striving to deliver standardized, high-quality care, the diverse contexts in which this care is delivered significantly influence the priorities, strategies, and design of community-based care management interventions. Gaps and challenges in implementing effective community-based care management programs include: optimizing allocation of care management services; lack of available technology tailored to care management needs; lack of standards and interoperability; integrating care management into care settings; evaluating impact; and funding and sustainability.

Measuring primary care organizational capacity for diabetes care coordination: the Diabetes Care Coordination Readiness Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Not all primary care clinics are prepared to implement care coordination services for chronic conditions, such as diabetes. Understanding true capacity to coordinate care is an important first-step toward establishing effective and efficient care coordination. Yet, we could identify no diabetes-specific instruments to systematically assess readiness and/or status of primary care clinics to engage in diabetes care coordination. OBJECTIVE: This report describes the development and initial validation of the Diabetes Care Coordination Readiness Assessment (DCCRA), which is intended to measure primary care clinic readiness to coordinate care for adult patients with diabetes. DESIGN: The instrument was developed through iterative item generation within a framework of five domains of care coordination: Organizational Capacity, Care Coordination, Clinical Management, Quality Improvement, and Technical Infrastructure. PARTICIPANTS: Validation data was collected on 39 primary care clinics. MAIN MEASURES: Content validity, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the 49-item instrument were assessed. KEY RESULTS: Inter-rater agreement indices per item ranged from 0.50 to 1.0. Cronbach's alpha of the entire instrument was 0.964, and for the five domain scales ranged from 0.688 to 0.961. Clinics with existing care coordinators were rated as more ready to support care coordination than clinics without care coordinators for the entire DCCRA and for each domain, supporting construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: As providers increasingly attempt to adopt patient-centered approaches, introduction of the DCCRA is timely and appropriate for assisting clinics with identifying gaps in provision of care coordination services. The DCCRA's strengths include promising psychometric properties. A valid measure of diabetes care coordination readiness should be useful in diabetes program evaluation, assistance with quality improvement initiatives, and measurement of patient-centered care in research.