Improving care coordination in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Although coordinating care is a defining characteristic of primary care, evidence suggests that both patients and providers perceive failures in communication and care when care is received from multiple sources. OBJECTIVES: To examine the utility of a newly developed Care Coordination Model in improving care coordination among participating practices in the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative (SNMHI). RESEARCH DESIGN: In this paper, we used correlation analysis to evaluate whether application of the elements of the Care Coordination Model by SNMHI sites, as measured by the Key Activities Checklist (KAC), was associated with more effective care coordination as measured by another instrument, the PCMH-A. MEASURES: SNMHI measures are practice self-assessments based on the 8 change concepts that define a PCMH, one of which is Care Coordination. For this study, we correlated 12 KAC items that describe activities felt to improve coordination of care with 5 PCMH-A items that indicate the extent to which a practice has developed the capability to effectively coordinate care. Practice staff indicated whether any of the KAC activities were being test, implemented, sustained, or not on 4 occasions. RESULTS: The Care Coordination Model elements-assume accountability, build relationships with care partners, support patients through the referral or transition process, and create connections to support information exchange-were positively correlated with some PCMH-A care coordination items but not others. Activities related to the model were most strongly correlated with following up patients seen in the Emergency Department or discharged from hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis provides suggestive evidence that activities consistent with the 4 elements of the Care Coordination Model may enable safety net primary care to better coordinate care for its patients, but further study is clearly needed.

Delivering effective primary care to older adults: a randomized, controlled trial of the senior resource team at group health cooperative.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of a team of geriatrics specialists on the practice style of primary care providers (PCPs) and the functioning of their patients aged 75 and older. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Two primary care clinics in the Seattle, Washington, area. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one PCPs and 874 patients aged 75 and older. INTERVENTION: An interdisciplinary team of geriatrics specialists worked with patients and providers to enhance the geriatric focus of care. MEASUREMENTS: Main outcomes were a practice style reflecting a geriatric orientation and patient scores on the physical and affect subscales of the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale 2-Short Form. Secondary outcomes were hospitalizations, incident disability in activities of daily living (ADLs), and PCP perceptions of the intervention. Death rates were also assessed. RESULTS: Intervention providers screened significantly more for geriatric syndromes at 12 months, but this finding did not persist at 24 months. There were no significant differences in adequate hypertension control or high-risk prescribing at 12 or 24 months of follow-up. There were no significant differences in patient functioning or significant differences in hospitalization rates at either time point. Meaningful differences were observed in ADL disability at 12 but not 24 months. PCPs viewed the intervention favorably. Seventy-eight participants died over the 24 months of follow-up; the proportion dying was higher in the intervention group (11.4% in intervention group vs 7.1% of controls, P=.03). CONCLUSION: The addition of an interdisciplinary geriatric team was acceptable to PCPs and had some effect on care of geriatric conditions but little effect on patient function or the use of inpatient care and was associated with greater mortality.

Community exercise program use and changes in healthcare costs for older adults.

BACKGROUND: Regular exercise is associated with many health benefits. Community-based exercise programs may increase exercise participation, but little is known about cost implications. METHOD: A retrospective, matched cohort study was conducted to determine if changes in healthcare costs for Medicare-eligible adults who choose to participate in a community-based exercise program were different from similar individuals who did not participate. Exercise program participants included 1114 adults aged > or = 65 years, who were continuously enrolled in Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (GHC) between October 1, 1997 and December 31, 2000 and who participated in the Lifetime Fitness (exercise) Program Copyright (LFP) at least once; three GHC enrollees who never attended LFP were randomly selected as controls for each participant by matching on age and gender. Cost and utilization estimates from GHC administrative data for the time from LFP enrollment to December 31, 2000 were compared using multivariable regression models. RESULTS: The average increase in annual total healthcare costs was less in participants compared to controls (+642 dollars vs +1175 dollars; p=0.05). After adjusting for differences in age, gender, enrollment date, comorbidity index, and pre-exposure cost and utilization levels, total healthcare costs for participants were 94.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.6%-103.5%) of control costs. However, for participants who attended the exercise program at an average rate of > or = 1 visit weekly, total adjusted follow-up costs were 79.3% (95% CI, 71.3%-88.2%) of controls. CONCLUSIONS: Including a community exercise program as a health insurance benefit shows promise as a strategy for helping some Medicare-eligible adults to improve their health through exercise.