Mar 212012
 

By Janice Lynch Schuster

During two days of sessions at the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s 13th International Summit, I was struck by repeated messages from plenary speakers and learning lab leaders. No matter the particulars of their presentation, each riffed in one way or another on the fact that we can all act now to change and improve health care so that we obtain better care, better outcomes, and lower costs. More than that, each pointed to the unique convergence of social, political, and health care factors that have set us up to get it right this time, to improve care for patients and their loved ones, to create a better environment for health care providers, and to imagine and implement a system in which health and health care are seen as human rights.

In his keynote address, former CMS Administrator and IHI founder Don Berwick, MD, left the audience with five principles on which to base change. In a nutshell: Put the patient first. Protect the disadvantaged. Start at scale—think big and act big. Return the money—drive waste out of the system and return that money to the community. And act locally.

In the spirit of acting locally, Altarum’s Center for Elder Care and Advanced Illness has developed two guides that we hope will help you to apply Dr. Berwick’s five principles to your work. The first of these is our “Get Started” guide (https://medicaring.org/action-guides/get-started/) to help activist service providers and community leaders imagine, design, and implement community-based systems to improve care transitions. The second of these, “The Agitator’s Guide,” (https://medicaring.org/action-guides/agitators-guide/) offers specific things you can do—RIGHT NOW—to improve the lives of frail elders in your community. Both documents embody the principles Dr. Berwick outlined, and give you an opportunity to test out the improvement mantra: What can you do by Tuesday?

If you test these ideas, we’d like to hear about and report your experiences, insights, and progress. Send a note to ([email protected]).

Key Words:  IHI, Don Berwick, Agitator’s Guide, local improvement

twitterrssyoutube
Mar 012012
 

This article, by Janice Lynch Schuster, originally appeared on the Altarum Institute Health Policy Forum on Thursday, March 1, 2012

A few days into my 68-year old father’s hospitalization for sepsis, his doctors determined the strain of bacteria that plagued him: streptococcus. My sister was there when they came in with this part of the diagnosis; she has a doctorate in engineering with a focus on the human heart (that engineering marvel), and she likes details.

“What strain?” she asked the doctor. “A, B, or C?”

His reply: “What does it matter to you?”

This exchange was, admittedly, not typical for this hospital and this doctor, so I’ll forgive him some. And the strain did not, in fact, matter in the course of his treatment. But the routine arrogance found in doctors and hospitals does not serve patients and family members well. Knowing the particulars of what ails you often matters a great deal, especially for patients like my father, hospitalized and on the verge of being discharged home or to some other setting, but not yet “well.”

Knowing this kind of information—the details of your diagnosis and likely course, and how your care should happen at every step along the way—is critical to enabling patients and family members to function as respected participants in care, including ensuring safe transitions from one care setting to another. Much recent research indicates that those transitions are fraught with errors and complications. Patients often do not know or understand what is happening to them and critical information is not transferred from one provider to another, and that costly (and sometimes deadly) rehospitalizations are the norm for some 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who have been hospitalized.

Patients and their family caregivers are central actors in making transitions safer. Indeed, since they are the only constant in the transition from one setting to another, patients and caregivers must increasingly assume the role of knowing as much as they can about what is going on with their care. Experts in the field refer to this kind of involvement as “patient activation” or “engagement,” which occurs when patients have the knowledge, skills, beliefs and confidence to manage their own health care processes and behaviors.

Increasingly complex health systems, in which difficult and important treatment decisions must be made, require patients and families to be well-informed about their diagnosis or condition, its specific treatments, and their individual care plan. According to research by Judith Hibbard and many others, patients who actively participate in managing their care have better health outcomes.

Patient activation can even be measured with a tool, the Patient Activation Measure, developed by Hibbard and her colleagues in the earlier part of this decade. The short-form of the tool includes 13 questions, which clinicians can use to assess patient understanding of their illness. Questions to the patient and caregiver address topics such as understanding why certain medications have been prescribed, whether lifestyle changes might help and ways that self-treatment can help. The PAM categorizes patients in one of four levels, with the first being the least activated patient, who does not have the confidence to engage in his or her own care and who is a passive recipient of that care; at the highest level, patients understand and manage their illness and maintain their health status despite stresses and crises.

The idea that patients should be active participants in their care is not new. The 2001 Institute of Medicine report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, states, “Care for the chronically ill needs to be a collaborative, multidisciplinary process. Effective methods of communication, both among caregivers and between caregivers and patients, are critical to providing high-quality care. Personal health information must accompany patients as they transition from home to clinical office setting to nursing home and back.”

In our current health care environment, in which patients are sometimes discharged “quicker and sicker,” they are expected to be more in charge—activated—than ever. They need to make and keep follow-up doctor appointments, manage complex medication regimens, organize home health care and visiting nurse appointments, store powerful medications, and track, monitor, and report changes in their health status. It’s a tough order, especially for people like my father, who do not know or understand the health care system, and find its workings difficult to navigate. Many good websites point patients, families, and health care providers to useful resources and strategies, among them http://www.informedmedicaldecisions.org/ and http://www.caretransitions.org/.

Ultimately, knowing the strain of my father’s strep infection was not going to change its treatment, and that may have been what the doctor meant. But in dismissing my sister’s concern, he was dismissing what is increasingly seen as essential to good health care. My sister is not one to be daunted by being dismissed, but many patients and family members would accept the put-down and never again ask a question. Knowledge, truly, is power, especially for people who are sick, vulnerable, and afraid. Being supported to understand and to manage the situation over time certainly can help patients and families to cope with what is happening and to prepare for and respond to it. In the end, the answer to the impertinent doctor is: “It all matters,” if only to establish a baseline mutual respect that encourages conversation about a diagnosis and a plan of care. Informed patients and families make for powerful and effective medicine.

twitterrssyoutube
Feb 022012
 

The following blog originally appeared on the Altarum Institute Health Policy Forum blog at www.healthpolicyforum.org on Tuesday, January 31, 2012. It is co-authored by Janice Lynch Schuster and Joanne Lynn.

“Care transitions” is the new buzzword in efforts to improve health, improve care and reduce costs. It seems that everyone is jumping on the bandwagon, implementing evidence-based solutions to problems in transitions, launching new programs and applying for funds totaling half a billion dollars from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

In November, CMS announced the first seven communities to receive funding under its new Community-Based Care Transition Program: Atlanta; Akron/Canton; Chicago; Southwest Ohio; Southern Maine; Maricopa County, Arizona; and the Merrimack Valley of Massachusetts. Communities have developed remarkable partnerships. Atlanta is involving six urban area hospitals serving 10 counties. Southwest Ohio has a team that includes university and community hospitals, as well as a health council and information technology groups covering areas in Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Merrimack will serve patients in 33 cities or towns in the region. In short, it is an impressive array of organizations that recognize that no single organization or entity can solve the problems of care transitions. It will, in fact, take a village, one that relies on many organizations and stakeholders to craft solutions that match their community’s preferences, resources and priorities.

For those who are young and relatively healthy, care transitions (i.e., hospital discharges) may not seem like a big deal. New mothers are discharged to follow up appointments with their OB/GYNs and pediatricians and usually can enlist new fathers and grandparents to help out with the baby during the early weeks. People who have an injury or a planned surgery will be discharged with instructions to follow up with their primary care doctors, take prescribed medications and maybe participate in physical therapy. For patients who are generally young and healthy, connecting the dots and mapping out a few weeks of a new routine may present a challenge, but it is easy enough to adjust to and figure out.

It is not so for frail elders and their caregivers—people who are over the age of 65, often over the age of 85, who have functional and cognitive impairments, who rely on others for activities of daily living and whose resources limit where they can go and whom they can see. Indeed, the transition often proves so difficult or ineffective that at least 20 percent of Medicare beneficiaries will be rehospitalized within 30 days of their initial discharge.

Poor discharge planning can be calamitous. A recent Health Affairs article chronicled the horror that ensued when a terminally ill patient was discharged home to hospice, only to arrive there with insufficient oxygen and no morphine. He died, suffocating, within 20 hours. The hospice nurse showed up afterward, apologized, and instructed the family on how to flush the morphine that they had finally received.

Many models have been developed and are being tested, hoping to prevent or eliminate the kinds of errors just described. Massachusetts’ Brian Jack, M.D., leads Project RED (Re-engineering Discharge), a hospital-based program that relies on enhanced staff training and a video avatar to help guide patients and families through discharge and follow-up. Colorado’s Eric Coleman, M.D., has developed an approach that emphasizes self-care capability and teaches four pillars to a good care transition. The Transitional Care Model relies on a specially trained advance practice nurse to work with families through the discharge process. Other models have been proposed and are being studied.

In our early work for Altarum Institute’s Center for Elder Care and Advanced Illness, we have found it useful to leverage changes in five areas in order to improve the design and implementation of effective care transitions quickly: medication reconciliation, patient activation, hospital discharge process, matching patients and services and information flow. In coming months, the CECAI staff will blog about each of these issues, sharing what we learned in the course of surveying the literature and experience to date. We expect that the movement will mature toward working on right-sizing the service array, dealing with advance care planning and providing feedback to earlier providers from later providers to enable improvement. We will keep watch for these and others.

It is intriguing that the solutions now underway rely so heavily on coalition building. Public health has long relied on this strategy to solve problems and promote social changes around other issues, such as smoking cessation, impaired driving, breastfeeding, the built environment and substance abuse. There are several definitions of what makes for a coalition; according to Frances Dunn Butterfoss, “coalitions are interorganizational, cooperative, and synergistic working alliances.”(1) Coalitions appear to go through three critical but nonlinear developmental phases: formation, maintenance and institutionalization.(2) As the newly developed CCTP programs launch, they will need to learn how to organize, lead and sustain an effective coalition. Perhaps those with experience and research can help.

The usual transition of an older person from hospital to home appears to entail multiple errors. Probably no other point in patient flow has so many errors and so great a tolerance for them. The current work on improving care transitions is long overdue and likely to make major improvements in cost and quality. The social capital that this work creates by pushing all parts of the care system to communicate and learn to work in a coordinated way is important; it could be the lynchpin of a new era of cooperative endeavors to build continuity into the fragmented care system.

References

1. Butterfoss, F. D., Goodman, R.M. & Wandersman. (1993). Community coalitions for prevention and health promotion. Health Education Research Theory and Practice, 8(3), 315–330
2. Osmond, J. Community coalition action theory as a framework for partnership development. Originally retrieved from mycalconnect.org/sacramento/download.aspx?id=10949 but which is now available from:
https://www.dshs.texas.gov/wellness/PDF/ccat-10.29.08.pdf

 Key words: care transitions, coalition building, frail elders, CCTP

twitterrssyoutube
Dec 052011
 

Patients just discharged from the hospital urgently need rapid follow-up in the community. Dr. Joanne Lynn describes the care coordination needed among patients, community providers, hospitals, and other settings, and what’s needed to make it work.

Key words: rapid follow-up, care transitions, discharge planning, quality improvement, rehospitalization

twitterrssyoutube
Nov 282011
 

The Southwest Ohio Care Transitions Collaborative, one of 7 sites chosen by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for the first cohort of 3026 funding, had lots going for it as it pulled together a broad-based community health coalition and implemented strategies to reduce avoidable readmissions for older adults. The program brought to its application a coalition that included major community-based organizations, the local hospital association, and five hospitals serving the Greater Cincinnati area. It had demonstrated success with a care transitions pilot program based on the Coleman model, and it submitted an application to CMS that clearly explained the strategy behind its blended rate calculations. The Collaborative estimates that it will serve some 5,400 seniors each year, with a cost savings to Medicare of more than $1 million. The specific intervention is built directly on the Coleman model, with some modifications to account for local needs and experiences.

The application built on the success of a pilot project implemented at UC Health University Hospital, which showed that participants had a lower-than-average readmission rate, and that most patients were discharged to their home or other community setting, rather than to a skilled nursing facility. Sharon Fusco, Director of Business Results and Innovation for the Council on Aging of Southwestern Ohio, is optimistic that the care transitions intervention will significantly reduce readmissions among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries with diagnoses that include pneumonia, heart failure, heart attack, or multiple chronic conditions.

In building the coalition, Fusco says the group aimed to be certain to include all of the organizations that could influence and affect patients’ lives; where the root cause analysis identified gaps in care, the coalition took care to find organizations that could fill them. As a result, the coalition now includes the Greater Cincinnati Health Council, which is the local hospital association; a health information and technology exchange organization; a program that helps to coordinate patient access to physicians; and a local mental health and recovery services board.

The Collaborative used its root cause analysis to identify gaps in care, and to consider strategies that would mitigate problems. So, for instance, as Fusco explained, the root cause analysis identified mental health issues as a significant barrier to patient involvement in discharge planning and follow-up. “We had to find a way to help these individuals, and to connect them to a mental health medical home,” Fusco explained. To that end, the mental health board was enlisted, and will play a critical role in assisting patients whose mental health problems present barriers to good care.

The analysis also found tremendous problems in medication reconciliation, a problem that affected more than 90% of patients in a pilot at University Hospital. In exploring this issue more deeply, the Collaborative found that many patients did not have relationships with or access to primary care physicians, a real barrier in trying to help hospitalized patients make and keep important follow-up appointments. To this end, the Collaborative involved a group that focuses on coordinating patient access to physicians.

In general, the Collaborative found that the Coleman Model matched most of its needs in responding to problems identified by the root cause analysis. The Council on Aging added a fifth pillar to the four pillars of the Coleman model home and community-based programs for which some patients might be eligible. Meals, home care assistance, and transportation are among the services these programs offer.

Fusco and  her colleague, Communications Director Laurie Petrie ,anticipate that the Collaborative will encounter some challenges in with regard to operations and technology  differences among participating hospitals (e.g., rural versus urban settings), and to the ramp-up of health information technology  systems. Fusco noted that one challenge will be “getting the right staff and the right tools to each hospital.” But she is confident in the Collaborative’s ability to overcome  these  barriers and deliver successful interventions.

Fusco offered some advice for other potential applicants. In particular, she advises that groups take time to explain in detail how they calculate their blended rate, “really spend time explaining the rate and what goes into it.” According to Fusco, the process of calculating the blended rate was difficult but critical. She said,  “The process of [pulling together this application] turned out to be a healthy exercise for us. Costing out all the inputs that go into providing this service was challenging and time consuming, but completely necessary. We built a cost model that allowed us to account for both fixed and variable costs. In the end, the process increased our learning, and we found it very beneficial.”

She advises other potential applicants to be thoughtful and meticulous as they develop their calculations. “You need to understand what your costs are, what’s fixed and what’s variable. Then you can plug in the numbers. But you have to think about everything that goes into serving a client—what does it cost you to actually run the intervention? Not just the face-to-face time with the client, but all of the rest of the costs.”

She also feels that the Collaborative’s application was stronger for having been reviewed and critiqued by external partners, individuals with no connection to the program being proposed. To that end, she said, consultations on aspects ranging from policy to cost were helpful.

Key words: care transitions, CCTP, Section 3026, award sites, community coalition, quality improvement

twitterrssyoutube
Sep 262011
 

AHRQ Innovators Exchange features information and a video about a pilot study to improve care for low-income elderly patients with chronic illnesses.

https://innovations.ahrq.gov/videos

Conducted by Ohio-based Summa Care under the leadership of Practice Change Fellows and Advisory Board Member Kyle Allen, DO, AGSF, the project reports that 70% of participants reported improved health, and 93% rated their experience as good or excellent one year after participation. The program led to cost savings of approximately $600 to $1000 per patient per month as a result of decreased hospitalizations. Summa Health is now conducting a three-year randomized controlled trial to confirm these results.

Summa Health System developed a program called the Frail Elders Care Management Program. The project involved interdisciplinary teams that provide integrated medical and social care management to low-income elderly in-patients who have chronic illnesses. The program aimed to ease the transition from hospital to home, provide preventive care, identify new and emerging problems, reduce readmissions, and prevent functional decline. Most participants were over the age of 65, had several chronic conditions and impaired activities of daily living, and had one or more problems that required an intervention. For example, nearly 40% of patients took more than 10 prescriptions, and nearly 50% had experienced one or more falls.

The project featured an interdisciplinary team whose members included a geriatrician, an advanced practice nurse, a registered nurse care manager, a social worker, and a geriatric pharmacist. Other clinicians were called on as needed. Primary care physicians, who then received a one-time fee, participated in a consultation with the nurse care manager. Over the course of three years, the Frail Elders Care Management Program served 1,272 patients. Based on promising preliminary results, AHRQ funded a three-year randomized controlled trial.

Key Words: frail elders, care transitions, quality improvement, interdisciplinary teams

twitterrssyoutube
Sep 122011
 

Transitions between care settings are fraught with errors that can lead to unnecessary suffering for patients and families, frustration for clinicians, and avoidable expenses for providers. Organizations nationwide need to pull together to create a seamless care system for patients living with multiple chronic conditions. Dr. Joanne Lynn explains why the issue of care transitions is paramount in endeavors to improve care of frail elders, and others living with advanced chronic conditions. This is the first of a 12-part video “how-to” series in which Dr. Lynn provides an overview of the issues, describes quality improvement efforts underway, and gives tips for clinicians and communities ready to get started in their own settings.

Key words: care transitions, frail elders, quality improvement, Joanne Lynn

twitterrssyoutube
Jul 082011
 

Despite widespread interest in the $500 million budget allotted for Community-Based Care Transitions Program (CCTP) under the Affordable Care Act, many stakeholders are confused about the exact nature of the program. What does it aim to do? Who is eligible to apply for the funds?

Aim: CCTP aims to improve the reliability and effectiveness of care transitions as evidenced by reducing hospital readmissions. CCTP participants are paid to improve services targeted fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries, the population requiring the most frequent care transitions. The backbone of the program in most places will be cooperation of service providers in a geographic community, since the participation and engagement of many stakeholders who share in the care of the area’s patients appears to be essential for sustained excellence.

Eligibility: To be eligible for funding, every applicant must have a minimum of one Community-Based Organization (CBO) and one hospital. While a hospital on CMS’s list of high readmission hospitals by state can lead a proposal, the payment will still go to the CBO, making lead authorship rather trivial. Priority will be given to eligible entities participating in programs run by the Administration on Aging (AoA), or that serve the medically underserved, small communities, or rural areas.

Financing: Foremost, this is not a grant! Payment is based on a blended rate proposed in the response to the solicitation, paid “per eligible discharge” and heavily based on the type of intervention. The blended rate can reflect different costs for different categories of patients and can include such elements as ongoing supervision, monitoring, administrative costs, and so on. Most important, however, it does not include initial training: Sites must have some previous experience with care transitions, so they must have paid for initial training. CMS payment also cannot directly support travel expenses for attending the required meetings in Baltimore (the cost of this must come from some other source).

Applicants are required to use the worksheet provided by CMS. No payments will be made more than once in 6 months for each beneficiary. In other words, CMS will not pay for re-treatment of patients for whom first efforts to prevent rehospitalization failed. Keep in mind that, although the program will run for 5 years, the initial award is only for 2 years, with possibility of renewal annually thereafter.

Intervention: CCTP interventions must target Medicare beneficiaries who are at high-risk for readmissions, based on criteria provided by HHS, or for substandard care post-hospitalization. Interventions cannot duplicate already required services. You must be willing to participate in collaborative learning and redesign (including data collection). Finally, and not surprisingly, your intervention must save money overall, and show savings within two years.

CMS’s measures so far include:

Outcome measures

  1. 30-d Risk-adjusted all-cause readmission rate (currently under development)
  2. 30-d unadjusted all cause readmission rate
  3. 30-d risk-adjusted AMI, HF, and Pneu readmissions

Process measures

  1. PCP follow-up within 7 days of hospital discharge
  2. PCP follow-up within 30 days of hospital discharge

“HCAHP items” – (note – includes more than HCAHPS)

  1. HCAHPS on medication info
  2. HCAHPS on discharge info
  3. Care Transitions Measure (3 – item)
  4. Patient Activation Measure (13-item, see:    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361231/table/tbl1/)

Note: There are some areas where the solicitation is unclear or internally inconsistent.

Key words: hospital readmission, care transitions, 3026 funding, evidence-based intervenitons, patient activation measure, budget worksheet, financing, medicare beneficiaries, payment rate, CMS

twitterrssyoutube
May 172011
 

Many improvement teams have real problems with measuring their progress – some never get around to measuring, and some never do anything else!  This presentation was set for the communities funded under the Beacon initiatives that are working to bring information exchange to care transitions, but you’ll find the pointers applicable to any intervention that your community might try.

You can download a PowerPoint presentation by clicking the following link:

caretransitionsmeasuresprimer (PowerPoint presentation)

Keywords: Beacon communities, care transitions, reasonable skeptic test, ten units of energy test, sure audience test, rehospitalization, best practices, Medicare, good care plans, near misses, targeting, nursing home residents, mentally ill, delirious, frail elderly, homeless, ESRD,  “revolving door” patients, case reviews, Care Transitions Measure, avoidable readmission, HCAHPS, discharge planning, denominator problems, numerator problems

 

twitterrssyoutube
Apr 222011
 

Many improvement leaders want to target the patients who need care transitions to work well.  Of course, every person moving around in the care system needs the processes to work reliably, but some either have few needs or can handle their needs on their own.  So – who is it who gets caught in snafus and errors?  The folks who either have very complicated needs or who really can’t handle much on their own.  And who is that?  First are the elderly folks with many medicines, multiple chronic conditions, poor hearing and vision, and so forth.  This is not your tennis-playing 80 year-old uncle – but his 86 year old sister living alone in fragile circumstances in a second floor walk-up.  Yes – living arrangements and availability of help really matter. 

And who else?  Those with serious chronic mental health problems – depression, delusions, addictions.  A person who has trouble “keeping it together” on a normal day is going to have challenges coping with the complexity of the health care system, and even more trouble on a day when he or she is not feeling well.

Any others?  Those are the two major groups, perhaps supplemented by any others who have proven their ability to keep recycling back into the system.  Anyone who has been in the hospital twice in six months, or in the ER a few times, is someone who is at high risk of keeping on with that pattern.

We don’t yet have good evidence-based tools that a provider could use.  If you know of any high-functioning, low-cost screening tools, let us know in comments to this blog or send it to [email protected].

twitterrssyoutube