暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: This study aims to identify medical care transformations during the COVID-19 pandemic and to assess the economic efficiency of these care transformations.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviewing and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The databases used in the search protocol included PubMed, RSCI, and Google Scholar.
UNASSIGNED: Ten eligible studies in English and one publication in Russian were identified. In general, the following changes in organization of health care processes since 2020 are observed: hospital at home, telemedicine (physician-to-patient), and the adoption of new information communication technologies within physician-to-physician and physician-to-nurse communication. Earlier trends, such as (a) wider use of electronic devices, (b) adoption of Lean techniques, (c) the incorporation of patient and other customer experience feedback, and (d) the implementation of clinical decision support systems and automation of workflow, tend to be preserved.
UNASSIGNED: The most common changes in hospital care organization and the respective impacts of workflow changes (ie, workflow interventions, redesign, and transformations) on the efficiency of hospital care were summarized and avenues for future research and policy implications were discussed. The pandemic demonstrated a need for building more resilient and adaptive healthcare systems, enhancing crisis preparedness along with rapid and effective responses.

Designing and developing safe systems has been a persistent challenge in health care, and in surgical settings in particular. In efforts to promote safety, safety culture, i.e., shared values regarding safety management, is considered a key driver of high-quality, safe healthcare delivery. However, changing organizational culture so that it emphasizes and promotes safety is often an elusive goal. The Safe Surgery Checklist is an innovative tool for improving safety culture and surgical care safety, but evidence about Safe Surgery Checklist effectiveness is mixed. We examined the relationship between changes in management practices and changes in perceived safety culture during implementation of safe surgery checklists. Using a pre-posttest design and survey methods, we evaluated Safe Surgery Checklist implementation in a national sample of 42 general acute care hospitals in a leading hospital network. We measured perceived management practices among managers (n = 99) using the World Management Survey. We measured perceived preoperative safety and safety culture among clinical operating room personnel (N = 2,380 (2016); N = 1,433 (2017)) using the Safe Surgical Practice Survey. We collected data in two consecutive years. Multivariable linear regression analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between changes in management practices and overall safety culture and perceived teamwork following Safe Surgery Checklist implementation.

As part of a population health-focused primary care transformation, in 2019 a health system in Minnesota developed a primary care team to exclusively care for high-cost high-need patients. Through its development and implementation, the team has discovered several key lessons in delivering care to complex patients. These lessons include the benefits of more integrative team-based care, the need and advantages of designated complex care team members, the importance of teamwork both within and outside of the complex care team, the need for frequent communication, and the importance of identifying mental health needs. In addition, there are several areas that require ongoing research and exploration, such as determining when a patient is able to graduate out of the program, how to enhance access to the complex care team, determining appropriate visit characteristics, and model feasibility. While addressing the needs of high cost high need patients is essential to improving quality of care and decreasing health care costs, there are several unique challenges and opportunities that come with caring for this patient population. Although this highly integrated model of care continues to evolve, the initial lessons learned may inform other health systems and care teams undertaking the care of complex patients.

Quality improvement strategies are important means for achieving high-quality, patient-centered care, and can improve provider satisfaction as well. This article outlines some key principles for how to implement quality improvement effectively in primary care practice, drawing from the authors\' collective experience in leading such efforts.

OBJECTIVE: Supporting the capture and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at the point-of-care enriches information about important clinical and quality of life outcomes. Yet the ability to scale PROs across healthcare systems has been limited by knowledge gaps around how to manage the diversity of PRO uses and leverage health information technology. In this study, we report learnings and practice insights from UW Medicine\'s practice transformation efforts to incorporate patient voice into multiple areas of care.
METHODS: Using a participatory, action research approach, we engaged with UW Medicine clinical and administrative stakeholders experienced with PRO implementation to inventory PRO implementations across the health system, characterize common clinical uses for PROs, and develop recommendations for system-wide governance and implementation of PROs.
RESULTS: We identified a wide breadth of PRO implementations (n = 14) in practice and found that nearly half (47%) of employed PRO measures captured shared clinical domains (e.g., depression). We developed three vignettes (use cases) that illustrate how users interact with PROs, characterize common ways PRO implementations support clinical care across the health system (1) Preventive care, (2) Chronic/Specialty care, and (3) Surgical/Interventional care), and elucidate opportunities to enhance efficient PRO implementations through system-level standards and governance.
CONCLUSIONS: Practice transformation efforts increasingly require integration of the patient voice into clinical care, often through the use of PROs. Learnings from our work highlight the importance of proactively considering how PROs will be used across the layers of healthcare organizations to optimize the design and governance of PROs.

The prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is growing rapidly, affecting 1 in 59 children in the United States in 2018. Individuals with ASD currently receive fragmented care that threatens their health and well-being. Challenges of autism care include disconnections between the medical system and school supports, poor care coordination between primary care and specialists, and saturation of neuropsychiatry-based centers\' capacity to care for the ASD population. ASD treatment also lacks of a coordinated system of care for patients\' multi-system comorbidities. Families are calling for an ASD care delivery system to meet their needs and the needs of their children. To serve people with ASD and their medical and other providers, we propose a coordinated approach to care grounded in primary care. We call the model the \"Systematic Network of Autism Primary Care Services (SYNAPSE).\" We develop the model by applying the frameworks of \"coproduction\" of care and chronic disease management. In this Commentary we discuss the model\'s rationale, underpinnings, and the implications for clinical practice. We advance these ideas to align with policy makers\' recognition of the importance of primary care for ASD, as reflected by the most recent Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) meeting at the National Institute of Mental Health.

Despite considerable investment in digital health (DH) companies and a growing DH ecosystem, there are multiple challenges to testing and implementing innovative solutions. Health systems have recognized the potential of DH and have formed DH innovation centers. However, limited information is available on DH innovation center processes, best practices, or outcomes. This case report describes a DH innovation center process that can be replicated across health systems and defines and benchmarks process indicators to assess DH innovation center performance. The Brigham and Women\'s Hospital\'s Digital Health Innovation Group (DHIG) accelerates DH innovations from idea to pilot safely and efficiently using a structured process. Fifty-four DH innovations were accelerated by the DHIG process between July 2014 and December 2016. In order to measure effectiveness of the DHIG process, key process indicators were defined as 1) number of solutions that completed each DHIG phase and 2) length of time to complete each phase. Twenty-three DH innovations progressed to pilot stage and 13 innovations were terminated after barriers to pilot implementation were identified by the DHIG process. For 4 DH solutions that executed a pilot, the average time for innovations to proceed from DHIG intake to pilot initiation was 9 months. Overall, the DHIG is a reproducible process that addresses key roadblocks in DH innovation within health systems. To our knowledge, this is the first report to describe DH innovation process indicators and results within an academic health system. Therefore, there is no published data to compare our results with the results of other DH innovation centers. Standardized data collection and indicator reporting could allow benchmark comparisons across institutions. Additional opportunities exist for the validation of DH solution effectiveness and for translational support from pilot to implementation. These are critical steps to advance DH technologies and effectively leverage the DH ecosystem to transform healthcare.

Payment systems generally do not directly encourage or support the reduction of health disparities. In 2013 the Finding Answers: Solving Disparities through Payment and Delivery System Reform program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation sought to understand how alternative payment models might intentionally incorporate a disparities-reduction component to promote health equity. A qualitative analysis of forty proposals to the program revealed that applicants generally did not link payment reform tightly to disparities reduction. Most proposed general pay-for-performance, global payment, or shared savings plans, combined with multicomponent system interventions. None of the applicants proposed making any financial payments contingent on having successfully reduced disparities. Most applicants did not address how they would optimize providers\' intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to reduce disparities. A better understanding of how payment and care delivery models might be designed and implemented to reduce health disparities is essential.

The Cincinnati, Ohio, metropolitan area was one of seventeen US communities to participate in the federal Beacon Community Cooperative Agreement Program to demonstrate how health information technology (IT) could be used to improve health care. Given $13.7 million to spend in thirty-one months, the Cincinnati project involved hundreds of physicians, eighty-seven primary care practices, eighteen major hospital partners, and seven federally qualified health centers and community health centers. The thrust of the program was to build a shared health IT infrastructure to support quality improvement through data exchange, registries, and alerts that notified primary care practices when a patient visited an emergency department or was admitted to a hospital. A special focus of this program was on applying these tools to adult patients with diabetes and pediatric patients with asthma. Despite some setbacks and delays, the basic technology infrastructure was built, the alert system was implemented, nineteen practices focusing on diabetes improvement were recognized as patient-centered medical homes, and many participants agreed that the program had helped transform care. However, the experience also demonstrated that the ability to transfer data was limited in electronic health record systems; that considerable effort was required to adapt technology to support quality improvement; and that the ambitious agenda required more time for planning, training, and implementation than originally thought.