21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Doctors’ opinion on the contribution of coordination mechanisms to improving clinical coordination between primary and outpatient secondary care in the Catalan national health system

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Clinical coordination is considered a health policy priority as its absence can lead to poor quality of care and inefficiency. A key challenge is to identify which strategies should be implemented to improve coordination. The aim is to analyse doctors’ opinions on the contribution of mechanisms to improving clinical coordination between primary and outpatient secondary care and the factors influencing their use.

          Methods

          A qualitative descriptive study in three healthcare networks of the Catalan national health system. A two-stage theoretical sample was designed: in the first stage, networks with different management models were selected; in the second, primary care ( n = 26) and secondary care ( n = 24) doctors. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews. Final sample size was reached by saturation. A thematic content analysis was conducted, segmented by network and care level.

          Results

          With few differences across networks, doctors identified similar mechanisms contributing to clinical coordination: 1) shared EMR facilitating clinical information transfer and uptake; 2) mechanisms enabling problem-solving communication and agreement on clinical approaches, which varied across networks (joint clinical case conferences, which also promote mutual knowledge and training of primary care doctors; virtual consultations through EMR and email); and 3) referral protocols and use of the telephone facilitating access to secondary care after referrals. Doctors identified organizational (insufficient time, incompatible timetables, design of mechanisms) and professional factors (knowing each other, attitude towards collaboration, concerns over misdiagnosis) that influence the use of mechanisms.

          Discussion

          Mechanisms that most contribute to clinical coordination are feedback mechanisms, that is those based on mutual adjustment, that allow doctors to exchange information and communicate. Their use might be enhanced by focusing on adequate working conditions, mechanism design and creating conditions that promote mutual knowledge and positive attitudes towards collaboration.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2690-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Electronic health records implementation: an evaluation of information system impact and contingency factors.

          This paper provides a review of EHR (electronic health record) implementations around the world and reports on findings including benefits and issues associated with EHR implementation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study

            Background The use of information and communication technologies in healthcare is seen as essential for high quality and cost-effective healthcare. However, implementation of e-health initiatives has often been problematic, with many failing to demonstrate predicted benefits. This study aimed to explore and understand the experiences of implementers -- the senior managers and other staff charged with implementing e-health initiatives and their assessment of factors which promote or inhibit the successful implementation, embedding, and integration of e-health initiatives. Methods We used a case study methodology, using semi-structured interviews with implementers for data collection. Case studies were selected to provide a range of healthcare contexts (primary, secondary, community care), e-health initiatives, and degrees of normalization. The initiatives studied were Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) in secondary care, a Community Nurse Information System (CNIS) in community care, and Choose and Book (C&B) across the primary-secondary care interface. Implementers were selected to provide a range of seniority, including chief executive officers, middle managers, and staff with 'on the ground' experience. Interview data were analyzed using a framework derived from Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Results Twenty-three interviews were completed across the three case studies. There were wide differences in experiences of implementation and embedding across these case studies; these differences were well explained by collective action components of NPT. New technology was most likely to 'normalize' where implementers perceived that it had a positive impact on interactions between professionals and patients and between different professional groups, and fit well with the organisational goals and skill sets of existing staff. However, where implementers perceived problems in one or more of these areas, they also perceived a lower level of normalization. Conclusions Implementers had rich understandings of barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of e-health initiatives, and their views should continue to be sought in future research. NPT can be used to explain observed variations in implementation processes, and may be useful in drawing planners' attention to potential problems with a view to addressing them during implementation planning.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Referral and consultation communication between primary care and specialist physicians: finding common ground.

              Communication between primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists regarding referrals and consultations is often inadequate, with negative consequences for patients. We examined PCPs' and specialists' perceptions of communication regarding referrals and consultations. We then identified practice characteristics associated with reported communication. We analyzed the nationally representative 2008 Center for Studying Health System Change Health Tracking Physician Survey of 4720 physicians providing at least 20 hours per week of direct patient care. Outcome measures were physician reports of communication regarding referrals and consultations. Perceptions of communication regarding referrals and consultations differed. For example, 69.3% of PCPs reported "always" or "most of the time" sending notification of a patient's history and reason for consultation to specialists, but only 34.8% of specialists said they "always" or "most of the time" received such notification. Similarly, 80.6% of specialists said they "always" or "most of the time" send consultation results to the referring PCP, but only 62.2% of PCPs said they received such information. Physicians who did not receive timely communication regarding referrals and consultations were more likely to report that their ability to provide high-quality care was threatened. The 3 practice characteristics associated with PCPs and specialists reporting communication regarding referrals and consultations were "adequate" visit time with patients, receipt of quality reports regarding patients with chronic conditions, and nurse support for monitoring patients with chronic conditions. These modifiable practice supports associated with communication between PCPs and specialists can help inform the ways that resources are focused to improve care coordination.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                maller@consorci.org
                ivargas@consorci.org
                jcoderch@ssibe.cat
                mlvazquez@consorci.org
                Journal
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Serv Res
                BMC Health Services Research
                BioMed Central (London )
                1472-6963
                22 December 2017
                22 December 2017
                2017
                : 17
                : 842
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Health Policy and Health Services Research Group; Health Policy Research Unit, Consortium for Health Care and Social Services of Catalonia, Avinguda Tibidabo 21, 08022 Barcelona, Spain
                [2 ]Grup de Recerca en Serveis Sanitaris i Resultats en Salut; Serveis de Salut Integrats Baix Empordà, Hospital, 17-19 Edif. Fleming, 17230 Palamós, Spain
                Article
                2690
                10.1186/s12913-017-2690-5
                5741878
                29273045
                f17935a7-f953-47b0-b56a-7ac8c5ea8863
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 31 January 2017
                : 7 November 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Fund
                Award ID: PI15/00021
                Award ID: PI10/00348
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Health & Social care
                clinical coordination mechanisms,integrated health care,primary care,outpatient secondary care,qualitative research, health personnel’s views

                Comments

                Comment on this article