Exploring Patient Journey Mapping and the Learning Health System: Scoping Review

How to facilitate the introduction of value-based payment models?

Value-based payment (VBP) models are designed and implemented to improve outcomes at the same or lower costs. Their adoption requires significant changes in the way healthcare organisations and insurance companies operate. Usually, before VBP models are widely implemented, pilot projects are conducted. Payers need to have a comprehensive set of requirements to enter into agreements with healthcare organisations on these pilots. In this short communication, we outline key elements reported in the literature, inside and outside healthcare organisations, as well as within the contract, that need to be considered in a pilot VBP model. Discussions regarding the introduction of VBP models may be strongly affected by external contextual factors, including regulations, which are outside the control of healthcare organisations. It requires collaboration between organisations, including primary care organisations and hospitals, while within organisations, it frequently requires creating multidisciplinary teams. The focus is on ensuring transparency, collaboration, and shared decision-making, realised by standardising communication processes and regular meetings. Additionally, effective leadership is needed, in which leaders set goals and priorities, as well as manage change. In the contractual agreements between payers and healthcare organisations, outcome measures need to be adequately defined and measured, including individual patient outcomes and composite scores, as well as absolute and relative performance measures. These measures should be tested periodically and catered to the organisations adopting the model. Also, incentives should have adequate size and frequency and be intrinsic and extrinsic. The consideration of these sets of key elements by the payers is essential when implementing VBP model pilot projects.

Patient portal interventions: a scoping review of functionality, automation used, and therapeutic elements of patient portal interventions

Objectives

We sought to understand the objectives, targeted populations, therapeutic elements, and delivery characteristics of patient portal interventions.

Materials and Methods

Following Arksey and O-Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a scoping review of manuscripts published through June 2022 by hand and systematically searching PubMed, PSYCHInfo, Embase, and Web of Science. The search yielded 5403 manuscripts; 248 were selected for full-text review; 81 met the eligibility criteria for examining outcomes of a patient portal intervention.

Results

The 81 articles described: trials involving comparison groups (n = 37; 45.7%), quality improvement initiatives (n = 15; 18.5%), pilot studies (n = 7; 8.6%), and single-arm studies (n = 22; 27.2%). Studies were conducted in primary care (n = 33, 40.7%), specialty outpatient (n = 24, 29.6%), or inpatient settings (n = 4, 4.9%)-or they were deployed system wide (n = 9, 11.1%). Interventions targeted specific health conditions (n = 35, 43.2%), promoted preventive services (n = 19, 23.5%), or addressed communication (n = 19, 23.4%); few specifically sought to improve the patient experience (n = 3, 3.7%). About half of the studies (n = 40, 49.4%) relied on human involvement, and about half involved personalized (vs exclusively standardized) elements (n = 42, 51.8%). Interventions commonly collected patient-reported information (n = 36, 44.4%), provided education (n = 35, 43.2%), or deployed preventive service reminders (n = 14, 17.3%).

Discussion

This scoping review finds that most patient portal interventions have delivered education or facilitated collection of patient-reported information. Few interventions have involved pragmatic designs or been deployed system wide.

Conclusion

The patient portal is an important tool in real-world efforts to more effectively support patients, but interventions to date rely largely on evidence from consented participants rather than pragmatically implemented systems-level initiatives.

Understanding the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity: protocol for a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Primary care and other health services have been disrupted during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the consequences of these service disruptions on patients' care experiences remain largely unstudied. People with mental-physical multimorbidity are vulnerable to the effects of the pandemic, and to sudden service disruptions. It is thus essential to better understand how their care experiences have been impacted by the current pandemic. This study aims to improve understanding of the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity during the pandemic and identify strategies to enhance these experiences.

METHODS

We will conduct a mixed-methods study with multi-phase approach involving four distinct phases. Phase 1 will be a qualitative descriptive study in which we interview individuals with mental-physical multimorbidity and health professionals in order to explore the impacts of the pandemic on care experiences, as well as their perspectives on how care can be improved. The results of this phase will inform the design of study phases 2 and 3. Phase 2 will involve journey mapping exercises with a sub-group of participants with mental-physical multimorbidity to visually map out their care interactions and experiences over time and the critical moments that shaped their experiences. Phase 3 will involve an online, cross-sectional survey of care experiences administered to a larger group of people with mental disorders and/or chronic physical conditions. In phase 4, deliberative dialogues will be held with key partners to discuss and plan strategies for improving the delivery of care to people with mental-physical multimorbidity. Pre-dialogue workshops will enable us to synthesize an prepare the results from the previous three study phases.

DISCUSSION

Our study results will generate much needed evidence of the positive and negative impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the care experiences of people with mental-physical multimorbidity and shed light on strategies that could improve care quality and experiences.