The chronic care paradox

Explicit Dialogue About the Purpose of Hospital Admission Is Essential: How Different Perspectives Affect Teamwork, Trust, and Patient Care

PURPOSE

The authors previously found that attending physicians conceptualize hospital admission purpose according to 3 perspectives: one focused dominantly on discharge, one on monitoring and managing chronic conditions, and one on optimizing overall patient health. Given implications of varying perspectives for patient care and team collaboration, this study explored how purpose of admission is negotiated and enacted within clinical teaching teams.

METHOD

Direct observations and field interviews took place in 2 internal medicine teaching units at 2 teaching hospitals in Ontario, Canada, in summer 2017. A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to inform data collection and analysis.

RESULTS

The 54 participants included attendings, residents, and medical students. Management decisions were identified across 185 patients. Attendings and senior medical residents (second- and third-year residents) were each observed to enact one dominant perspective, while junior trainees (first-year residents and students) appeared less fixed in their perspectives. Teams were not observed discussing purpose of admission explicitly; however, differing perspectives were present and enacted. These differences became most noticeable when at the extremes (discharge focused vs optimization focused) or between senior medical residents and attendings. Attendings implicitly signaled and enforced their perspectives, using authority to shut down and redirect discussion. Trainees' maneuvers for enacting their perspectives ranged from direct advocacy to covert manipulation (passive avoidance/forgetting and delaying until attending changeover).

CONCLUSIONS

Failing to negotiate and explicitly label perspectives on purpose of admission may lead to attendings and senior medical residents working at cross-purposes and to trainees participating in covert maneuvers, potentially affecting trust and professional identify development.

A scoping review and thematic classification of patient complexity: offering a unifying framework

The path to improving healthcare quality for individuals with complex health conditions is complicated by a lack of common understanding of complexity. Modern medicine, together with social and environmental factors, has extended life, leading to a growing population of patients with chronic conditions. In many cases, there are social and psychological factors that impact treatment, health outcomes, and quality of life. This is the face of complexity. Care challenges, burden, and cost have positioned complexity as an important health issue. Complex chronic conditions are now being discussed by clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers around such issues as quantification, payment schemes, transitions, management models, clinical practice, and improved patient experience. We conducted a scoping review of the literature for definitions and descriptions of complexity. We provide an overview of complex chronic conditions, and what is known about complexity, and describe variations in how it is understood. We developed a Complexity Framework from these findings to guide our approach to understanding patient complexity. It is critical to use common vernacular and conceptualization of complexity to improve service and outcomes for patients with complex chronic conditions. Many questions still persist about how to develop this work with a health and social care lens; our framework offers a foundation to structure thinking about complex patients. Further insight into patient complexity can inform treatment models and goals of care, and identify required services and barriers to the management of complexity.

Journal of Comorbidity 2012;2:1–9

Co-morbidity does not reflect complexity in internal medicine patients

Internal medicine patients are mostly elderly; they have multiple co-morbidities, which are usually chronic, rather than self-limiting or acute diseases. Neither administrative indicators nor co-morbidity indexes, though validated in elderly patients, are able to completely define these "complex" patients or to allow physicians to correctly "cope" with them. For the complex patients found in internal medicine wards, internists need not only to find the best diagnosis and treatment, but also to apply a complex intervention (i.e., a comprehensive assessment and both continuous and multi-disciplinary care) in order to maintain their health and ability to function and to prevent or delay disability, frailty, and displacement from home and community. The aim of this review is to underscore the differences between the concepts of co-morbidity and complexity, to discuss instruments for their measurement, and to highlight related implications, areas of uncertainty, and the responsibilities of internists in the assessment and management of inpatients of their wards. The conclusion we come to is that it is mandatory to shift from a finance/administrative-based management system to a clinical process model (clinical governance) driven by the quality of the medical outcome and the cost of achieving that outcome. From a "complexity theory" standpoint, patient-centered care and collaboration can be seen as simple rules that guide desirable behaviors in a complex system. By exploring the real complexity of our patients, we exercise the holistic, anthropologic medicine of the person that is internal medicine.

Toward an ecosystemic approach to chronic care design and practice in primary care

Despite the increasing prevalence of chronic conditions and multimorbidities, the essential attributes of the structure and delivery of primary care continue to be defined in terms of disease-specific approaches and acute conditions. Effective improvements will require alternative ways of thinking about chronic care design and practice. This essay argues for an ecosystemic understanding of chronic care founded on a communal and a dynamic view of the response of the patient, family, and health professionals to chronic illness. The communal view highlights the cocreative nature of the response to illness and the need to integrate the skills and resources of all the participants; what and how the participants learn in the course of the illness become central to chronic care. The dynamic view draws attention to the unfolding of illness management activities over time and to the need to engage the illness at specific time points or recurring time intervals that have the potential for important change in the experience of the participants. Chronic care would then include design for community, with an emphasis on the patient and family as necessary participants in the health care team. It would also include design for emergent learning and practice whereby health professionals go beyond standardization of care processes to develop new ways to harness the participants' imagination and learn from the changing experience of illness. Health professionals would also learn to cultivate trust, communal engagement, and openness to experimentation that facilitate collective learning, and help sharpen the participants' responsiveness to the emergent.

Clinical challenges in the care of frail older persons

The clinical challenges of meeting the needs of frail older persons are essentially those encompassed by chronic disease multiplied by the special problems presented by aging, namely the presentation and management of disease and the special syndromes associated with geriatrics. The need to develop an approach to the care of frail older persons reflects a more general need to address system reform for chronic disease. The steps include new roles for patients and their families, the use of information technology to monitor changes in patients' status more continuously and to intervene in a more timely way, and a re-evaluation of the use of personnel at all levels. At present, we know more about how to deliver effective chronic care than we practice. The barriers to implementation include both a general reluctance to change and negative financial incentives to implement what has been shown to be effective.