Suchergebnisse

Hospital discharge planners play an important role in helping patients choose appropriate home health care. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, they may not have had enough information to make the best decisions for their patients. A study of 58 discharge planners from Michigan hospitals found that 90% of them wanted information about the quality of home health agencies and whether they were prepared for COVID-19. However, only about 20% had this information readily available. The study also found that discharge planners varied in how they incorporated quality information. Some did not incorporate any quality information at all, while others provided it to patients without explaining its significance. Only about 25% of discharge planners helped patients interpret different sources of information. These findings suggest that hospital discharge planners had an unmet need for quality information, and they also provided limited assistance to patients. This may have led to some patients receiving suboptimal care. Thus, we proposed that hospital discharge planners need more information about the quality of home health agencies. Discharge planners should be more transparent about the quality of information they have, and they should help patients interpret it.

Physicians are expected and incentivized to coordinate patient care with other providers, including nonphysician clinician (NPC) members of care teams, requiring trust. Trust in the context of care teams has not been well-studied; even less is known about how health information technologies (HIT) may modify trust in these relationships. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 physicians at a Midwestern academic center to examine how physicians determine they can trust NPCs, and how technology modifies these relationships. A majority of physicians base trust in NPCs on cognitive factors such as competence and reliability. Technology enhances trust between physicians and NPCs by supporting evidence-based decision making; it can also erode trust by limiting opportunities for developing familiarity and comfort with fellow providers. Our work has implications for enhancing HIT to promote trust between providers, and for developing more robust measures of trust that can be used in evaluating and improving teamwork within practices.

AbstractThe COVID-19 pandemic of 2020 was one of the rare events that shocked almost every world government simultaneously, thus creating an unusual opportunity to understand how political institutions shape policy decisions. There have been many analyses of what governments did. We focus instead on what they could do, focusing on the institutional politics of agency – how institutions empower rather than how they constrain, and how they affect public policy decisions. We examine public health measures in the first wave (March-September 2020) in Brazil, India, and the U.S. to understand how the interplay of institutions in a complex federal context shaped COVID-19 policy-responses. We find similar patterns of concentrated federal executive agency with limited constraints. In each case, when federal leadership failed public health policy responses, federated, subnational states were left to compensate for these inefficiencies without necessary resources.

More than 80% of family care partners of older adults are responsible for coordinating care between and among providers; yet, their inclusion in the health care delivery process lacks recognition, coordination, and standardization. Despite efforts to include care partners (e.g., through informal or formal proxy access to their care recipient's patient portal), policies and procedures around care partner inclusion are complex and inconsistently implemented. We conducted a scoping review of peer-reviewed articles published from 2015 to 2021 and reviewed a final sample of 45 U.S.-based studies. Few articles specifically examine the inclusion of care partners in health care teams; those that do, do not define or measure care partner inclusion in a standardized way. Efforts to consider care partners as "partners" rather than "visitors" require further consideration of how to build health care teams inclusive of care partners. Incentives for health care organizations and providers to practice inclusive team-building may be required.

Mixed methods research (MMR) is versatile, pragmatic, and adaptable to constraints and opportunities during a research process. Although MMR has gain popularity in health services management research, little is known about how the research approach has been used and the quality of research. We conducted a systematic review of 198 MMR articles published in selected U.S.-based and international health services management journals from 2000 through 2018 to examine the extent of MMR application and scientific rigor. Results showed limited, yet increasing, use of MMR and a high degree of correspondence between MMR designs and study purposes. However, most articles did not clearly justify using MMR designs and the reporting of method details and research integration were inadequate in a significant portion of publications. We propose a checklist to assist the preparation and review of MMR manuscripts. Additional implications and recommendations to improve transparency, rigor, and quality in MMR are discussed.