A Multi-site Case Study of Care Coordination Between Primary Care and Specialty Care

Forging hospital and community partnerships to enable care coordination for opioid use disorder

BACKGROUND

Programs that aim to increase access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment in hospital-based settings have proliferated in recent years. These efforts include transitional opioid programs (TOPs), which navigate patients to community-based SUD treatment programs post-discharge. Successful navigation from TOPs to outpatient treatment hinges on effective coordination between hospitals and post-discharge endpoints, yet it is unclear how hospitals can best develop effective partnerships with outpatient treatment organizations. The objective of this study is to synthesize the common themes underpinning the development of partnerships to facilitate care transitions between TOPs and ongoing SUD treatment.

METHODS

Qualitative study with staff and providers from hospitals affiliated with four safety-net health systems (n = 21) and leaders from community-based organizations (CBOs) and treatment facilities that had established referral partnerships with one of the four health systems in our study (n = 4).

RESULTS

Analysis of interview transcripts revealed seven common themes that underpinned the development of care transitions partnerships: (1) Active, intentional outreach; (2) Responding to a community need; (3) External Enabling Factors; (4) Leveraging reputations and community connections; (5) Focusing on operations; (6) Reciprocal relationships; and (7) Building Infrastructure and Processes to Ensure Collaboration. The seven identified themes were categorized into three groups corresponding to different partnership development stages. The first group revolves around the initial stage of meeting and developing a relationship (themes #1-4). The second set focuses on navigating and resolving challenges that arise in the partnership (themes #5-6). Lastly, the third group pertains to sustaining a partnership long-term (theme #7).

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies seven core themes underlying the development of care transition partnerships for SUD patients within four safety net health systems and their CBO partners. These themes demonstrate how partner organizations can establish the trust, reciprocity, and commitment necessary to support patients through the critical transition period.

Barriers accessing specialty care in the United States: a patient perspective

BACKGROUND

Specialty care is a critical component of the healthcare system in the United States (US). Despite the frequency and importance of specialty referrals, disparities accessing specialty care have been reported across geographic regions and sociodemographic groups in the US.

METHODS

The purpose of this study is to help inform health policy and practical solutions for improving access to specialty care in the US. We examined patients' perspectives and experiences regarding access to specialty care for themselves and family members across 5 specialty areas (oncology, neurology, ophthalmology, endocrinology, and other specialty). Data for access to care were collected from the RAND American Life Panel, a nationally representative probability-based panel of 6,000 participants who are regularly interviewed over the internet.

RESULTS

The survey population consisted of 2,137 adults, with a specialist referral recommended for 1,391 respondents (65%). The mean age of the population was 59.4 years, 23.0% were rural dwellers, 57.6% were female, 80.8% were White, 59.4% were married or living with a partner, and 85.4% were in good health. Approximately one-third (28%) of the US population experienced a barrier accessing a care specialist (oncologist, neurologist, ophthalmologist, endocrinologist, or other specialist) for themselves or for their families in 2021. Differences in access to specialty care were observed between US census regions. Difficulty accessing specialty care differed according to sociodemographic groups; a greater percentage of respondents who were < 65 years, women, or BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) experienced a problem accessing a specialist. Numerous barriers were identified that limited access to specialty care in the overall US population, with difficulty getting an appointment and long wait times being identified as primary barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient access to specialty care may be further complicated by patient-specific compounding factors including the number of specialty referrals, insurance providers, and barriers.

Multidisciplinary providers' perceptions of care delivery for sleep disorders: A qualitative case study

OBJECTIVES

Sleep disorders are wide-ranging in their causes and impacts on other physical and mental health conditions. Thus, sleep disorders could benefit from a multidisciplinary approach to assessment and treatment. An integrated care model is often recommended but is costly to implement. We sought to understand how, in the absence of an established organizational structure for integrated sleep care, providers from different clinics work together to provide care for sleep disorders.

METHODS

A qualitative case study at one U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center. We used a purposeful nested sampling strategy, combining maximum variation sampling and snowball sampling to recruit key staff involved in sleep care.

RESULTS

We interviewed providers (N = 10) from sleep medicine, primary care, and mental health services. Providers identified the ubiquity of sleep disorders and a concomitant need for multidisciplinary care. However, they described limited opportunities for multidisciplinary interactions and consequently a negative impact on clinical care. Providers described fragmentation in two areas: among sleep specialists and between sleep specialists and other referring and managing providers.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of interventions, based on setting and resources, could improve care coordination both among sleep specialists and between sleep and nonsleep providers. While integrated sleep specialist clinics could reduce care fragmentation, they may not directly impact coordination with referring providers, like primary care and general mental health, who are essential in managing chronic conditions. Future work should continue to explore improving care coordination for sleep problems to ensure patients receive high-quality, timely, patient-centered care.

Commentary on Burns, Nembhard and Shortell, "Integrating network theory into the study of integrated healthcare": Revisiting and extending research on structural and processual factors affecting coordination

Burns et al.'s innovative recommendation to use social network theory to study integration will contribute to our understanding of how healthcare systems can optimally deliver high quality, coordinated, person-centered care. We discuss three enhancements to this approach. (1) In increasing our attention to social network analysis and processual perspectives, we must not "throw out the baby with the bathwater" and abandon research that includes formal organizational structure. Structure remains an important focus for researchers and healthcare managers, who spend considerable resources on reorganizing. Since there is evidence that formal structure affects social processes and coordination, future research should build on that evidence and investigate how coordination is affected by the segmentation of organizations into units and the structures and processes designed to integrate interdependent work across those units. Conducting network analysis in the context of formal structure can help us better understand how formal structure affects both social networks and coordination. (2) Using multi-level, mixed methods, and qualitative research will be critically important to fully understand how and why formal organizational structure, social networks, and processual dynamics contribute to coordination or fragmentation of care. Because the relationships among these constructs occur not only within, but also across multiple levels, multi-level research is necessary to understand their effects on coordination. In considering the individual level, patients can be studied as a role embedded in networks. In addition, however, we must not lose a focus on patients as people at the center of multi-level networks, whose attitudes, values, preferences and goals may directly affect processual dynamics and coordination of care. (3) Finally, our field lacks precision in nomenclature, specification of levels, and the constructs within them, including ambiguity around even what is meant by "structure" and its variations. Furthermore, different authors use "macro", "meso", and "micro", differently, contributing to confusion in the discourse on organizational phenomena. Greater clarity and consistency in terminology is needed to facilitate research and improve communication across the field.