目的:该研究旨在分析护理整合与护理质量之间的关系,并检查这种关系是否因患者风险而异。
方法:关键的独立变量使用了从提供者对功能的调查得出的经过验证的度量(即,行政和临床系统)和社会(即,患者整合,专业合作,专业协调)整合。调查答复代表了来自17个卫生系统的59个执业地点的分层抽样数据。因变量包括从患者级医疗保险数据构建的三个质量测量:在有风险的患者中进行结直肠癌筛查,患者水平30天再入院,以及公开报告的实践级医疗保健有效性数据和信息集(HEDIS)复合度量,动态临床质量绩效的个体测量。
方法:我们获得了由我们调查样本中的59个实践服务的41,966名医疗保险受益人的质量和受益人水平协变量数据。
方法:我们估计了分层线性模型,以检查护理整合与护理质量之间的关联以及患者临床风险评分的调节作用。我们以图形方式可视化了z标准化的独立变量和调节变量在±1标准偏差处的调节效果,并进行了简单的斜率测试。
结果:我们的分析揭示了社会融合之间的强烈正相关关系,特别是患者整合,以及患者接受的护理质量(例如,实践的患者积分增加1分与HEDIS综合评分提高0.31分相关,p<0.01)。Further,我们记录了基于患者风险的社会和功能整合方面对护理质量的正相关和显著相关.
结论:研究结果表明,社会融合对于提高护理质量很重要,并且对于所有患者而言,融合与质量的关系并不一致。考虑卫生系统结构整合的政策制定者和从业人员应将注意力转移到结构之外,以考虑社会融合对结果产生影响的潜力以及如何实现这一目标。
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to analyze the relationship between care integration and care quality, and to examine if the relationship varies by patient risk.
METHODS: The key independent variables used validated measures derived from a provider survey of functional (i.e., administrative and clinical systems) and social (i.e., patient integration, professional cooperation, professional coordination) integration. Survey responses represented data from a stratified sample of 59 practice sites from 17 health systems. Dependent variables included three quality measures constructed from patient-level Medicare data: colorectal cancer screening among patients at risk, patient-level 30-day readmission, and a practice-level Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) composite measure of publicly reported, individual measures of ambulatory clinical quality performance.
METHODS: We obtained quality- and beneficiary-level covariate data for the 41,966 Medicare beneficiaries served by the 59 practices in our survey sample.
METHODS: We estimated hierarchical linear models to examine the association between care integration and care quality and the moderating effect of patients\' clinical risk score. We graphically visualized the moderating effects at ±1 standard deviation of our z-standardized independent and moderating variables and performed simple slope tests.
RESULTS: Our analyses uncovered a strong positive relationship between social integration, specifically patient integration, and the quality of care a patient receives (e.g., a 1-point increase in a practice\'s patient integration was associated with 0.31-point higher HEDIS composite score, p < 0.01). Further, we documented positive and significant associations between aspects of social and functional integration on quality of care based on patient risk.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest social integration matters for improving the quality of care and that the relationship of integration to quality is not uniform for all patients. Policymakers and practitioners considering structural integrations of health systems should direct attention beyond structure to consider the potential for social integration to impact outcomes and how that might be achieved.