Care Coordination Models and Tools: A Systematic Review ...
?
Evidence Synthesis Program
Care Coordination Models and Tools:
A Systematic Review and Key
Informant Interviews
June 2020
Prepared for:
Department of Veterans Affairs
Veterans Health Administration
Health Services Research & Development Service
Washington, DC 20420
Prepared by:
Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) Center
Minneapolis VA Health Care System
Minneapolis, MN
Timothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH, Director
Wei Duan-Porter, MD, PhD, Associate Director
Authors:
Principal Investigator:
Wei Duan-Porter, MD, PhD
Co-Investigators:
Isomi Miake-Lye, PhD
Susan Diem, MD
Timothy J. Wilt, MD, MPH
Research Associates:
Kristen Ullman, MPH
Brittany Majeski, BA
?
Care Coordination Implementation
Evidence Synthesis Program
PREFACE
The VA Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) was established in 2007 to provide timely and accurate
syntheses of targeted health care topics of importance to clinicians, managers, and policymakers as they
work to improve the health and health care of Veterans. These reports help:
?
Develop clinical policies informed by evidence;
?
Implement effective services to improve patient outcomes and to support VA clinical practice
guidelines and performance measures; and
?
Set the direction for future research to address gaps in clinical knowledge.
The program is comprised of 4 ESP Centers across the US and a Coordinating Center located in
Portland, Oregon. Center Directors are VA clinicians and recognized leaders in the field of evidence
synthesis with close ties to the AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center Program and Cochrane
Collaboration. The Coordinating Center was created to manage program operations, ensure
methodological consistency and quality of products, and interface with stakeholders. To ensure
responsiveness to the needs of decision-makers, the program is governed by a Steering Committee
comprised of health system leadership and researchers. The program solicits nominations for review
topics several times a year via the program website.
Comments on this evidence report are welcome and can be sent to Nicole Floyd, Deputy Director, ESP
Coordinating Center at Nicole.Floyd@.
Recommended citation: Duan-Porter W, Ullman K, Majeski B, Miake-Lye I, Diem S, and Wilt TJ.
Evidence review: care coordination models and tools. Washington, DC: Evidence Synthesis Program,
Health Services Research and Development Service, Office of Research and Development,
Department of Veterans Affairs. VA ESP Project #09-009; 2020. Available at:
.
This report is based on research conducted by the Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) Center located at the
Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans
Health Administration, Health Services Research and Development. The findings and conclusions in this document
are those of the author(s) who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily
represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States government. Therefore, no statement
in this article should be construed as an official position of the Department of Veterans Affairs. No investigators
have any affiliations or financial involvement (eg, employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or
options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties) that conflict with material presented
in the report.
i
Care Coordination Implementation
Evidence Synthesis Program
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This topic was developed in response to a nomination from the Office of Nursing Services and
the Office of Care Management and Social Work Services to support the Coordinated Care and
Integrated Case Management (CC&ICM) Initiative. The scope was further developed with input
from the topic nominators (ie, Operational Partners), the ESP Coordinating Center, the review
team, and the technical expert panel (TEP).
In designing the study questions and methodology at the outset of this report, the ESP consulted
several technical and content experts. Broad expertise and perspectives were sought. Divergent
and conflicting opinions are common and perceived as healthy scientific discourse that results in
a thoughtful, relevant systematic review. Therefore, in the end, study questions, design,
methodologic approaches, and/or conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of
individual technical and content experts.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this
project:
Operational Partners
Operational partners are system-level stakeholders who have requested the report to inform
decision-making. They recommend Technical Expert Panel (TEP) participants; assure VA
relevance; help develop and approve final project scope and timeframe for completion; provide
feedback on draft report; and provide consultation on strategies for dissemination of the report to
field and relevant groups.
Lisa Perla, MSN, FNP, CNRN, CRRN
Co-lead, Data Management and Research Workgroup
Coordinated Care and Integrated Case Management Initiative
Janet Belisle, MHA, RHIA, FACHE
Co-lead, Data Management and Research Workgroup
Care Management and Social Work Services
Jimmy Boerschmann, RN, BSN, MSHC
Co-lead, Data Management and Research Workgroup
Office of Nursing Services
Elizabeth Sprinkle, LCSW, C-ASWCM, MVF-ASW
Field Advisor
Coordinated Care and Integrated Case Management Initiative
Technical Expert Panel (TEP)
To ensure robust, scientifically relevant work, the TEP guides topic refinement; provides input
on key questions and eligibility criteria, advising on substantive issues or possibly overlooked
areas of research; assures VA relevance; and provides feedback on work in progress. TEP
members are listed below:
ii
Care Coordination Implementation
Evidence Synthesis Program
Erica Abel, PhD
Psychologist and Associate Investigator, Pain Research, Informatics, Multi-morbidities, and
Education (PRIME) Center, VA Connecticut Healthcare System
Assistant Clinical Professor, Yale School of Medicine
Kristina Cordasco, MD, MPH, MSHS
Core Investigator, Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy
(CSHIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System
Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles
Denise Hynes, BSN, MPH, PhD, RN
Research Health Scientist, Investigator, Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care
(CIVIC), VA Portland Health Care System
Professor, School of Social and Behavioral Health Sciences, College of Public Health and
Human Sciences, Oregon State University
Kristin Mattocks, PhD, MPH
Associate Chief of Staff/Research & Education, VA Central Western Massachusetts
Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Peer Reviewers
The Coordinating Center sought input from external peer reviewers to review the draft report and
provide feedback on the objectives, scope, methods used, perception of bias, and omitted
evidence. Peer reviewers must disclose any relevant financial or non-financial conflicts of
interest. Because of their unique clinical or content expertise, individuals with potential conflicts
may be retained. The Coordinating Center and the ESP Center work to balance, manage, or
mitigate any potential nonfinancial conflicts of interest identified.
iii
Care Coordination Implementation
Evidence Synthesis Program
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
Methods....................................................................................................................................... 1
Results ......................................................................................................................................... 4
Discussion ................................................................................................................................... 7
Abbreviations Table.................................................................................................................... 11
EVIDENCE REPORT ................................................................................................................ 12
INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 12
METHODS .................................................................................................................................. 13
Topic Development................................................................................................................... 13
Conceptual Framework of Care Coordination Models ......................................................... 13
Key Questions (KQ) ............................................................................................................. 14
Search Strategy ......................................................................................................................... 15
Study Selection ......................................................................................................................... 15
Quality Rating & Data Abstraction........................................................................................... 15
Data Synthesis for Systematic Reviews & Relevant Primary Studies...................................... 16
Interviews with Key Informants who Implemented Care Coordination Models ...................... 16
Peer Review .............................................................................................................................. 17
RESULTS .................................................................................................................................... 17
Overview of Eligible Systematic Reviews ............................................................................... 17
KQ1¡ªWhat are the key characteristics of care coordination models? .................................... 18
KQ2¡ªWhat is the effect of implementing care coordination models? .................................... 19
KQ3¡ªWhat are the characteristics of settings in which effective models have been
implemented? ............................................................................................................................ 20
KQ4¡ªWhat are the tools and approaches used by effective models? ..................................... 20
Key Informant Interviews ......................................................................................................... 20
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 27
Summary of Key Findings ........................................................................................................ 27
Implications for Policy.............................................................................................................. 28
Evidence Gaps and Future Research Needs.............................................................................. 29
Limitations ................................................................................................................................ 29
Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 30
iv
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- glossary of commonly used court justice system
- signal words cause effect compare contrast
- the role of law enforcement in the response to child
- care coordination models and tools a systematic review
- american land title association
- acg barretts esophagus guideline summary
- forensic examination of digital evidence a guide for law
- investigation and review of the federal bureau of
Related searches
- care management models best practices
- kawasaki mule models and pricing
- organizational change models and theories
- strategy models and frameworks
- nursing models and theories
- teaching models and theories
- change management models and theories
- a systematic problem solving strategy
- coleman lantern models and years
- difference between models and theories
- organizational models and designs
- classroom management models and theories