Physician Perspectives on Medical Home Recognition for Practice Transformation for Children

From programme theory to logic models for multispecialty community providers: a realist evidence synthesis

Background

The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets.

Objectives

To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly.

Design

Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way.

Data sources

Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions.

Results

The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individual patients and the diversion of patients from inpatient to primary care. The evidence was weaker, or mixed (supporting some of the constituent assumptions but not others), concerning voluntary sector involvement, the effects of preventative care on hospital admissions and patient experience, planned referral networks and demand management systems. The evidence about the effects of referral reductions on costs was equivocal. We found no studies confirming that the development of preventative care would reduce demands on inpatient services. The IPT had overlooked certain mechanisms relevant to MCPs, mostly concerning MDTs and the uses of HITs.

Limitations

The studies reviewed were limited to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, because of the large amount of published material, the period 2014–16, assuming that later studies, especially systematic reviews, already include important earlier findings. No empirical studies of MCPs yet existed.

Conclusions

Multidisciplinary teams are a central mechanism by which MCPs (and equivalent networks and organisations) work, provided that the teams include the relevant professions (hence, organisations) and, for care planning, individual patients. Further primary research would be required to test elements of the revised logic model, in particular about (1) how MDTs and enhanced general practice compare and interact, or can be combined, in managing referral networks and (2) under what circumstances diverting patients from in-patient to primary care reduces NHS costs and improves the quality of patient experience.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038900.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

Disparities in Patient- and Family-Centered Care During US Children's Health Care Encounters: A Closer Examination

OBJECTIVE

Patient- and family-centered care (PFCC), which recognizes the family as an integral partner in high-quality clinical decision-making, is important to improving children's health care. Studies examining PFCC disparities in the general US pediatric population, however, are sparse, and use methodology that might mislead readers to overestimate effect sizes because of the high prevalence of high-quality PFCC. We address these issues using improved statistical modeling of conceptually-grounded disparity domains on more recent data.

METHODS

This study examined 22,942 children in the 2011 to 2013 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys (pooled cross-section) with at least 1 health care visit in the previous year (eligible for PFCC questions). We used robust-adjusted multivariable Poisson regression to estimate prevalence rate ratios-closer estimates of true risk ratios of highly prevalent outcomes-of 4 measures of high-quality PFCC and a composite measure.

RESULTS

Overall, PFCC quality prevalences were high, ranging from 95% to 97% across the 4 PFCC measures with 92% of parents reporting the composite measure. In multivariable analyses, lower prevalence of high-quality PFCC was consistently observed among publicly insured children (relative to the privately insured, prevalence rate ratios ranging from 0.978 to 0.984 across the PFCC measures; 0.962 in the composite) and children living in families below the poverty line (children at ≥400% of the poverty line had 1.018-1.045 times the prevalence of high-quality PFCC across the PFCC measures; 1.056 in the composite).

CONCLUSIONS

Although prevalence rate ratio methodology revealed smaller and perhaps clinically insignificant disparities in US children's PFCC quality than previously portrayed, nonetheless, several statistically significant disparities remain. The most consistent disparities identify those most vulnerable to PFCC quality: publicly insured and impoverished children.