CONTEXT: Quality problems and spiraling costs have resulted in widespread interest in solutions that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. Care coordination has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as one of the key strategies for potentially accomplishing these improvements.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this project were to develop a working definition of care coordination, apply it to a review of systematic reviews, and identify theoretical frameworks that might predict or explain how care coordination mechanisms are influenced by factors in the health care setting and how they relate to patient outcomes and health care costs.

DATA SOURCES AND REVIEW METHODS: We used literature databases, Internet searches, and personal contacts to assemble background information on ongoing care coordination programs; potential definitions; conceptual frameworks and related empirical evidence; and care coordination measures. We also conducted literature searches through September 30, 2006 of MEDLINE®, and November 15, 2006 for CINAHL®, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts to identify systematic reviews of care coordination interventions. We excluded systematic reviews with a narrow focus, namely those conducted solely in the inpatient setting, or where the only two participants involved in care were the patient and a health care provider.

RESULTS: We identified numerous ongoing programs in the private and public sector, most of which have not yet been evaluated. We identified over 40 definitions of care coordination and related terminology, and developed a working definition drawing together common elements: Care coordination is the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including the patient) involved in a patient's care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshalling of personnel and other resources needed to carry out all required patient care activities, and is often managed by the exchange of information among participants responsible for different aspects of care. We used this definition to develop our inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting potentially relevant systematic reviews. Our literature search yielded 4,730 publications, of which 75 systematic reviews evaluating care coordination interventions, either fully or as a part of the review, met inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 20 different coordination interventions (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, case management, disease management) covering 12 clinical populations (e.g., mental health, heart disease, diabetes) and conducted in multiple settings (e.g., outpatient, community, home). Finally, we identified four conceptual frameworks (Andersen's behavioral framework, Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, Nadler/Tushman and others' Organizational design framework with Wagner's Chronic Care Model provided as an example of such design, and Gittell's Relational coordination framework) with potential applicability to studying care coordination by assessing baseline characteristics of the environment, specific coordination mechanism alternatives, and outcomes. The strongest evidence shows benefit of care coordination interventions for patients who have congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, severe mental illness, a recent stroke, or depression, though evidence about key intervention components is lacking.

CONCLUSIONS: Care coordination interventions represent a wide range of approaches at the service delivery and systems level. Their effectiveness is most likely dependent upon appropriate matching between intervention and care coordination problem, though more conceptual, empirical and experimental research is required to explore this hypothesis.

Objectives: The goal of this technical review is to critically examine the issue of care coordination for children with special health care needs (CSHCN). Of particular interest is the knowledge base relating to those aspects of care coordination for CSHCN that are of greatest importance to current practice and policy challenges.

Review Methods: A structured search and review of the literature was conducted to address the following issues:

1. Analytic approaches and definitions used for care coordination strategies for CSHCN.
2. Evidence for best practices of care coordination for CSHCN.
3. Evidence for the impact of managed care for CSHCN enrolled in Medicaid.

Results: Among the principal findings are:

1. Despite considerable progress in defining care coordination and CSHCN, there remains considerable variation in current analytic approaches and definitions.
2. Some progress has been made in developing care coordination strategies for CSHCN.
3. There is a major need to evaluate the impact of these strategies on health outcomes and costs.
4. Continued progress in care coordination for CSHCN may depend upon the replication and evaluation of promising strategies in different practice settings and under different reimbursement policies.
5. The constructive assessment of enhanced care coordination programs in managed care systems would be facilitated by new, more focused metrics and performance measures.
6. There is little evidence regarding the impact of managed care systems on CSHCN enrolled in Medicaid.

Recommendations: Among the principal recommendations are:

1. Increase support for efforts to identify in a standard manner CSHCN in large administrative or clinical datasets.
2. Expand efforts to evaluate care coordination interventions for CSHCN, particularly in managed care settings.
3. Develop capacity and performance standards of direct relevance for CSHCN for managed care plans.
4. Link development of care coordination programs for CSHCN to emerging practice and health system reforms.

Context: Quality problems and spiraling costs have resulted in widespread interest in solutions that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health care system. Care coordination has been identified by the Institute of Medicine as one of the key strategies for potentially accomplishing these improvements.

Objectives: The objectives of this project were to develop a working definition of care coordination, apply it to a review of systematic reviews, and identify theoretical frameworks that might predict or explain how care coordination mechanisms are influenced by factors in the health care setting and how they relate to patient outcomes and health care costs.

Data Sources and Review Methods: We used literature databases, Internet searches, and personal contacts to assemble background information on ongoing care coordination programs; potential definitions; conceptual frameworks and related empirical evidence; and care coordination measures. We also conducted literature searches through September 30, 2006, of MEDLINE®, and November 15, 2006, for CINAHL®, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, American College of Physicians Journal Club, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PsychInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Social Services Abstracts to identify systematic reviews of care coordination interventions. We excluded systematic reviews with a narrow focus, namely those conducted solely in the inpatient setting, or where the only two participants involved in care were the patient and a health care provider.

Results: We identified numerous ongoing programs in the private and public sector, most of which have not yet been evaluated. We identified over 40 definitions of care coordination and related terminology, and developed a working definition drawing together common elements:

Care coordination is the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including the patient) involved in a patient's care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshalling of personnel and other resources needed to carry out all required patient care activities, and is often managed by the exchange of information among participants responsible for different aspects of care.

We used this definition to develop our inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting potentially relevant systematic reviews. Our literature search yielded 4,730 publications, of which 75 systematic reviews evaluating care coordination interventions, either fully or as a part of the review, met inclusion criteria. From these, we identified 20 different coordination interventions (e.g., multidisciplinary teams, case management, disease management) covering 12 clinical populations (e.g., mental health, heart disease, diabetes) and conducted in multiple settings (e.g., outpatient, community, home). Finally, we identified four conceptual frameworks (Andersen's behavioral framework, Donabedian's structure-process-outcome framework, Nadler/Tushman and others' Organizational design framework with Wagner's Chronic Care Model provided as an example of such design, and Gittell's Relational coordination framework) with potential applicability to studying care coordination by assessing baseline characteristics of the environment, specific coordination mechanism alternatives, and outcomes.

The strongest evidence shows benefit of care coordination interventions for patients who have congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, severe mental illness, a recent stroke, or depression, though evidence about key intervention components is lacking.

Conclusions: Care coordination interventions represent a wide range of approaches at the service delivery and systems level. Their effectiveness is most likely dependent upon appropriate matching between intervention and care coordination problem, though more conceptual, empirical and experimental research is required to explore this hypothesis.

Objective: The objectives of this study were to characterize (1) families' cumulative burden of health-related social problems regarding access to health care, housing, food security, income security, and intimate partner violence; (2) families' experiences regarding screening and referral for social problems; and (3) parental acceptability of screening and referral.

Methods: We surveyed 205 parents of children who were 0 to 6 years of age and attended 2 urban pediatric clinics for a well-child visit using a self-administered, computer-based questionnaire. The questionnaire included previously validated questions about health-related social problems and new questions about screening and referral in the past 12 months.

Results: A total of 205 (79%) of 260 eligible families participated. Eighty-two percent of families reported > or = 1 health-related social problem; 54% experienced problems in > or = 2 social domains. Families experienced similar types and frequencies of problems despite demographic differences between clinics. One third of families reported no screening in any domain in the previous 12 months. Of 205 families, 143 (70%) identified at least 1 need for a referral; 101 (49%) expressed > or = 1 unmet referral need. Of families who reported receiving referrals, 115 referrals were received by 79 families; of the referrals made, 63% (73 of 115) led to contact with the referral agency, and 82% (60 of 73) of the referral agencies were considered helpful. A computer-based system in a pediatrician's office for future screening and referral for health-related social problems was deemed acceptable by 92% of parents.

Conclusions: Urban children and families reported a significant burden of health-related social problems yet infrequent pediatric screening or referral for these problems. Of families who reported receiving referrals, a majority contacted the recommended agencies and found them helpful. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using a computer-based questionnaire to identify health-related social problems in a routine outpatient clinic setting.

Background: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been shown to decrease future ischemic stroke risk in selected patients. However, clinical trials did not examine the risk-benefit ratio for nonwhites, who have a greater ischemic stroke risk than whites. In general, few studies have examined the effects of race on CEA use and complications, and data on race and CEA readmission are lacking.

Methods: This study used administrative data for patients discharged from California hospitals between January 1 and December 31, 2000. Selection criteria of cases included: ICD-9 principal procedure code 38.12, principal diagnostic code 433 and diagnosis-related group 5. There were 8,080 white and 1196 nonwhite patients (228 blacks, 643 Hispanics, 325 Asians/Pacific Islanders) identified that underwent an elective and isolated CEA. For both groups, CEA rates were compared. Logistic regression was used to examine the independent effects of race on in-hospital death and stroke, as well as CEA readmission.

Results: Rates of CEA use were more than three times greater for whites than nonwhites, although nonwhites were more likely to have symptomatic disease. For all patients, the complication rate was 1.9%. However, the odds of in-hospital death and stroke were greater for nonwhites than whites, but after adjustment for patient and hospital factors, these differences were only significant for stroke (OR = 1.7, P = 0.013). For both outcomes, the final models had good predictive accuracy. Overall, CEA readmission risk was 7%, and no significant racial differences were observed (P = 0.110).

Conclusions: The data suggest that CEA is performed safely in California. However, nonwhites had lower rates of initial CEA use but higher rates of in-hospital death and stroke than whites. Racial differences in stroke risk persisted after adjustment for patient and hospital factors. Finally, this study found that despite significant racial disparities in initial CEA use, whites and nonwhites were similar in their CEA readmission rates. These findings may suggest that screening initiatives are lacking for nonwhites, which may increase their risk for poorer outcomes.

Background: There has been a large increase in both the number of neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in community hospitals and the complexity of the cases treated in these units. We examined differences in neonatal mortality among infants with very low birth weight (below 1500 g) among NICUs with various levels of care and different volumes of very-low-birth-weight infants.

Methods: We linked birth certificates, hospital discharge abstracts (including interhospital transfers), and fetal and infant death certificates to assess neonatal mortality rates among 48,237 very-low-birth-weight infants who were born in California hospitals between 1991 and 2000.

Results: Mortality rates among very-low-birth-weight infants varied according to both the volume of patients and the level of care at the delivery hospital. The effect of volume also varied according to the level of care. As compared with a high level of care and a high volume of very-low-birth-weight infants (more than 100 per year), lower levels of care and lower volumes (except for those of two small groups of hospitals) were associated with significantly higher odds ratios for death, ranging from 1.19 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.37) to 2.72 (95% CI, 2.37 to 3.12). Less than one quarter of very-low-birth-weight deliveries occurred in facilities with NICUs that offered a high level of care and had a high volume, but 92% of very-low-birth-weight deliveries occurred in urban areas with more than 100 such deliveries.

Conclusions: Mortality among very-low-birth-weight infants was lowest for deliveries that occurred in hospitals with NICUs that had both a high level of care and a high volume of such patients. Our results suggest that increased use of such facilities might reduce mortality among very-low-birth-weight infants.

Purpose: Recent studies and anecdotal evidence suggest that patient safety may be compromised on weekends. Our objective was to determine whether rates of complications in hospitals are higher on weekends than on weekdays.

Methods: We examined records from 4,967,114 admissions to acute care hospitals in 3 states and analyzed complication rates using the Patient Safety Indicators. We selected 8 indicators that could be assigned to a single day: complications of anesthesia, retained foreign bodies, postoperative hemorrhage, accidental cuts and lacerations during procedures, birth trauma, obstetric trauma during vaginal deliveries with and without instrumentation, and obstetric trauma during cesarean delivery. Odds ratios (ORs) comparing weekends versus weekdays were adjusted for demographics, type of admission, and admission route. In a subgroup analysis of surgical complications, we restricted the population to patients who underwent cardiac or vascular procedures.

Results: Four of the 8 complications occurred more frequently on weekends: postoperative hemorrhage (OR 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.14), newborn trauma (OR 1.06, 95% CI, 1.03-1.10), vaginal deliveries without instrumentation (OR 1.03, 95% CI, 1.02-1.04), and obstetric trauma during cesarean sections (OR 1.36, 95% CI, 1.29-1.44). Complications related to anesthesia occurred less frequently on weekends (OR 0.86). Among patients undergoing vascular procedures, surgical complications occurred more frequently on weekends (OR 1.46, 95% CI, 1.16-1.85).

Conclusions: Rates of complications are marginally higher on weekends than on weekdays for some surgical and newborn complications, but more significantly for obstetric trauma and for surgical complications involving patients undergoing vascular procedures. Hospitals should work toward increasing the robustness of safeguards on weekends.

Context: Hospitals are under pressure to increase revenue and lower costs, and at the same time, they face dramatic variation in clinical demand.

Objective: We sought to determine the relationship between peak hospital workload and rates of adverse events (AEs).

Methods: A random sample of 24,676 adult patients discharged from the medical/surgical services at 4 US hospitals (2 urban and 2 suburban teaching hospitals) from October 2000 to September 2001 were screened using administrative data, leaving 6841 cases to be reviewed for the presence of AEs. Daily workload for each hospital was characterized by volume, throughput (admissions and discharges), intensity (aggregate DRG weight), and staffing (patient-to-nurse ratios). For volume, we calculated an "enhanced" occupancy rate that accounted for same-day bed occupancy by more than 1 patient. We used Poisson regressions to predict the likelihood of an AE, with control for workload and individual patient complexity, and the effects of clustering.

Results: One urban teaching hospital had enhanced occupancy rates more than 100% for much of the year. At that hospital, admissions and patients per nurse were significantly related to the likelihood of an AE (P 0.05); occupancy rate, discharges, and DRG-weighted census were significant at P 0.10. For example, a 0.1% increase in the patient-to-nurse ratio led to a 28% increase in the AE rate. Results at the other 3 hospitals varied and were mainly non significant.

Conclusions: Hospitals that operate at or over capacity may experience heightened rates of patient safety events and might consider re-engineering the structures of care to respond better during periods of high stress.