Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"When Dr. Jack Cochran took over leadership of the Colorado Permanente Medical Group in the mid-1990s, he oversaw high-quality medical teams providing excellent care, but dealt with organizational troubles so deep rooted that patients and physicians fled in droves. In The Doctor Crisis, Cochran, now executive director of The Permanente Federation, and author Charles Kenney show how we can improve health care on a grass roots level, regardless of political policy disputes, by improving conditions for physicians and asking them to take on broader accountability. Doctors, they argue, are the key to making health care in the United States truly great, and we must do all we can to preserve and enhance the careers of physicians. They clarify the steps needed to take to support doctors so that they can focus on patient care, and offer concrete ideas for creating an environment and establishing systems that encourage doctors to put patients' needs above all else\"--Provided by publisher.

BACKGROUND Policies promoting widespread adoption of electronic medical records (EMRs) are premised on the hope that they can improve the coordination of care. Yet little is known about whether and how physician practices use current EMRs to facilitate coordination. OBJECTIVES We examine whether and how practices use commercial EMRs to support coordination tasks and identify work-arounds practices have created to address new coordination challenges. DESIGN, SETTING Semi-structured telephone interviews in 12 randomly selected communities. PARTICIPANTS Sixty respondents, including 52 physicians or staff from 26 practices with commercial ambulatory care EMRs in place for at least 2 years, chief medical officers at four EMR vendors, and four national thought leaders. RESULTS Six major themes emerged: (1) EMRs facilitate within-office care coordination, chiefly by providing access to data during patient encounters and through electronic messaging; (2) EMRs are less able to support coordination between clinicians and settings, in part due to their design and a lack of standardization of key data elements required for information exchange; (3) managing information overflow from EMRs is a challenge for clinicians; (4) clinicians believe current EMRs cannot adequately capture the medical decision-making process and future care plans to support coordination; (5) realizing EMRs’ potential for facilitating coordination requires evolution of practice operational processes; (6) current fee-for-service reimbursement encourages EMR use for documentation of billable events (office visits, procedures) and not of care coordination (which is not a billable activity). CONCLUSIONS There is a gap between policy-makers’ expectation of, and clinical practitioners’ experience with, current electronic medical records’ ability to support coordination of care. Policymakers could expand current health information technology policies to support assessment of how well the technology facilitates tasks necessary for coordination. By reforming payment policy to include care coordination, policymakers could encourage the evolution of EMR technology to include capabilities that support coordination, for example, allowing for inter-practice data exchange and multi-provider clinical decision support.

The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers' decisions and patients' outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice. But inevitability does not mean easy transition. We have years of professional agreement and bipartisan consensus regarding the potential value of EHRs. Yet we have not moved significantly to extend the availability of EHRs from a few large institutions to the smaller clinics and practices where most Americans . . .

Background The theory of middle managers’ role in implementing healthcare innovations hypothesized that middle managers influence implementation effectiveness by fulfilling the following four roles: diffusing information, synthesizing information, mediating between strategy and day-to-day activities, and selling innovation implementation. The theory also suggested several activities in which middle managers might engage to fulfill the four roles. The extent to which the theory aligns with middle managers’ experience in practice is unclear. We surveyed middle managers ( n  = 63) who attended a nursing innovation summit to (1) assess alignment between the theory and middle managers’ experience in practice and (2) elaborate on the theory with examples from middle managers’ experience overseeing innovation implementation in practice. Findings Middle managers rated all of the theory’s hypothesized four roles as “extremely important” but ranked diffusing and synthesizing information as the most important and selling innovation implementation as the least important. They reported engaging in several activities that were consistent with the theory’s hypothesized roles and activities such as diffusing information via meetings and training. They also reported engaging in activities not described in the theory such as appraising employee performance. Conclusions Middle managers’ experience aligned well with the theory and expanded definitions of the roles and activities that it hypothesized. Future studies should assess the relationship between hypothesized roles and the effectiveness with which innovations are implemented in practice. If evidence supports the theory, the theory should be leveraged to promote the fulfillment of hypothesized roles among middle managers, doing so may promote innovation implementation.

Background Technological support may be crucial in optimizing healthcare professional practice and improving patient outcomes. A focus on electronic health records has left other technological supports relatively neglected. Additionally, there has been no comparison between different types of technology-based interventions, and the importance of delivery setting on the implementation of technology-based interventions to change professional practice. Consequently, there is a need to synthesise and examine intervention characteristics using a methodology suited to identifying important features of effective interventions, and the barriers and facilitators to implementation. Three aims were addressed: to identify interventions with a technological component that are successful at changing professional practice, to determine if and how such interventions are theory-based, and to examine barriers and facilitators to successful implementation. Methods A literature review informed by realist review methods was conducted involving a systematic search of studies reporting either: (1) behavior change interventions that included technology to support professional practice change; or (2) barriers and facilitators to implementation of technological interventions. Extracted data was quantitative and qualitative, and included setting, target professionals, and use of Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs). The primary outcome was a change in professional practice. A thematic analysis was conducted on studies reporting barriers and facilitators of implementation. Results Sixty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria; 48 (27 randomized controlled trials) reported behavior change interventions and 21 reported practicalities of implementation. The most successful technological intervention was decision support providing healthcare professionals with knowledge and/or person-specific information to assist with patient management. Successful technologies were more likely to operationalise BCTs, particularly “instruction on how to perform the behavior”. Facilitators of implementation included aligning studies with organisational initiatives, ensuring senior peer endorsement, and integration into clinical workload. Barriers included organisational challenges, and design, content and technical issues of technology-based interventions. Conclusions Technological interventions must focus on providing decision support for clinical practice using recognized behavior change techniques. Interventions must consider organizational context, clinical workload, and have clearly defined benefits for improving practice and patient outcomes.

This national survey finds that only 4% of physicians use an extensive, fully functional system for electronic health records, and 13% use some form of basic electronic records. Those who use electronic records are generally satisfied with the systems and believe that they improve the quality of care that patients receive. Only 4% of physicians use an extensive, fully functional system for electronic health records, and 13% use some form of basic electronic records. Those who use electronic records believe that they improve the quality of care that patients receive. Health-information technology, such as sophisticated electronic health records, has the potential to improve health care. 1 – 3 Nevertheless, electronic-records systems have been slow to become part of the practices of physicians in the United States. 4 , 5 To date, there have been no definitive national studies that provide reliable estimates of the adoption of electronic health records by U.S. physicians. Recent estimates of such adoption by physicians range from 9 to 29%. 4 , 5 These percentages were derived from studies that either had a small number of respondents or incompletely specified definitions of an electronic health record. 5 , 6 To provide clearer estimates of . . .

Community health centers are at the forefront of ambulatory care practices in their use of nonphysician clinicians and team-based primary care. We examined medical staffing patterns, the contributions of different types of staff to productivity, and the factors associated with staffing at community health centers across the United States. We identified four different staffing patterns: typical, high advanced-practice staff, high nursing staff, and high other medical staff. Overall, productivity per staff person was similar across the four staffing patterns. We found that physicians make the greatest contributions to productivity, but advanced-practice staff, nurses, and other medical staff also contribute. Patterns of community health center staffing are driven by numerous factors, including the concentration of clinicians in communities, nurse practitioner scope-of-practice laws, and patient characteristics such as insurance status. Our findings suggest that other group medical practices could incorporate more nonphysician staff without sacrificing productivity and thus profitability. However, the new staffing patterns that evolve may be affected by characteristics of the practice location or the types of patients served.

Background Hospital governance is broadening its orientation from cost and production controls towards ‘improving performance on clinical outcomes’. Given this new focus one might assume that doctors are drawn into hospital management across OECD countries. Hospital performance in terms of patient health, quality of care and efficiency outcomes is supposed to benefit from their involvement. However, international comparative evidence supporting this idea is limited. Just a few studies indicate that there may be a positive relationship between medical doctors being part of hospital boards, and overall hospital performance. More importantly, the assumed relationship between these so-called doctor managers and hospital performance has remained a ‘black-box’ thus far. However, there is an increasing literature on the implementation of quality management systems in hospitals and their relation with improved performance. It seems therefore fair to assume that the relation between the involvement of doctors in hospital management and improved hospital performance is partly mediated via quality management systems. The threefold aim of this paper is to 1) perform a quick scan of the current situation with regard to doctor managers in hospital management in 19 OECD countries, 2) explore the phenomenon of doctor managers in depth in 7 OECD countries, and 3) investigate whether doctor involvement in hospital management is associated with more advanced implementation of quality management systems. Methods This study draws both on a quick scan amongst country coordinators in OECD’s Health Care Quality Indicator program, and on the DUQuE project which focused on the implementation of quality management systems in European hospitals. Results This paper reports two main findings. First, medical doctors fulfil a broad scope of managerial roles at departmental and hospital level but only partly accompanied by formal decision making responsibilities. Second, doctor managers having more formal decision making responsibilities in strategic hospital management areas is positively associated with the level of implementation of quality management systems. Conclusions Our findings suggest that doctors are increasingly involved in hospital management in OECD countries, and that this may lead to better implemented quality management systems, when doctors take up managerial roles and are involved in strategic management decision making.

Background: Although coordinating care is a defining characteristic of primary care, evidence suggests that both patients and providers perceive failures in communication and care when care is received from multiple sources. Objectives: To examine the utility of a newly developed Care Coordination Model in improving care coordination among participating practices in the Safety Net Medical Home Initiative (SNMHI). Research Design: In this paper, we used correlation analysis to evaluate whether application of the elements of the Care Coordination Model by SNMHI sites, as measured by the Key Activities Checklist (KAC), was associated with more effective care coordination as measured by another instrument, the PCMH-A. Measures: SNMHI measures are practice self-assessments based on the 8 change concepts that define a PCMH, one of which is Care Coordination. For this study, we correlated 12 KAC items that describe activities felt to improve coordination of care with 5 PCMH-A items that indicate the extent to which a practice has developed the capability to effectively coordinate care. Practice staff indicated whether any of the KAC activities were being test, implemented, sustained, or not on 4 occasions. Results: The Care Coordination Model elements—assume accountability, build relationships with care partners, support patients through the referral or transition process, and create connections to support information exchange—were positively correlated with some PCMH-A care coordination items but not others. Activities related to the model were most strongly correlated with following up patients seen in the Emergency Department or discharged from hospital. Conclusions: The analysis provides suggestive evidence that activities consistent with the 4 elements of the Care Coordination Model may enable safety net primary care to better coordinate care for its patients, but further study is clearly needed.