Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 11, pp 1937–1944 | Cite as

Engaging High-Need Patients in Intensive Outpatient Programs: A Qualitative Synthesis of Engagement Strategies

  • Donna M. Zulman
  • Colin W. O’Brien
  • Cindie Slightam
  • Jessica Y. Breland
  • David Krauth
  • Andrea L. Nevedal
Original Research

Abstract

Background

Intensive outpatient programs address the complex medical, social, and behavioral needs of individuals who account for disproportionate healthcare costs. Despite their promise, the impact of these programs is often diminished due to patient engagement challenges (i.e., low rates of patient participation and partnership in care).

Objective

The objective of this study was to identify intensive outpatient program features and strategies that increase high-need patient engagement in these programs.

Design

Qualitative study.

Participants

Twenty program leaders and clinicians from 12 intensive outpatient programs in academic, county, Veterans Affairs, community, and private healthcare settings.

Approach

A questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used to identify common barriers to patient engagement in intensive outpatient programs and strategies employed by programs to address these challenges. We used content analysis methods to code patient engagement barriers and strategies and to identify program features that facilitate patient engagement.

Key Results

The most common barriers to patient engagement in intensive outpatient programs included physical symptoms/limitations, mental illness, care fragmentation across providers and services, isolation/lack of social support, financial insecurity, and poor social and neighborhood conditions. Patient engagement strategies included concrete services to support communication and use of recommended services, activities to foster patient trust and relationships with program staff, and counseling to build insight and problem-solving capabilities. Program features that were identified as enhancing engagement efforts included: 1) multidisciplinary teams with diverse skills, knowledge, and personalities to facilitate relationship building; 2) adequate staffing and resources to handle the demands of high-need patients; and 3) a philosophy that permitted flexibility and patient-centeredness.

Conclusions

Promising clinical, interpersonal, and population-based approaches to engaging high-need patients frequently deviate from standard practice and require creative and proactive staff with adequate time, resources, and flexibility to address patients’ needs on patients’ terms.

KEY WORDS

patient engagement patient-centered care primary care vulnerable populations care management 

Notes

Contributors

The authors would like to thank the following program representatives for their study participation and contributions to this project: Robert Carr, Anna Chodos, Elizabeth Davis, Nate L. Ewigman, Brenda Goldstein, Courtney Gray, Kathryn Holloway, Debra Hummel, Debra Keller, Michael Kern, Ann Lindsay, David Moskowitz, Kathy O’Brien, Delila Pellot, Maria C. Raven, Laura Rombach Rau, Rebeca Servin, Jonathan Shaw, Ramona Soberanis, and Kathryn Stambaugh. We would also like to thank Steven Asch and Mary Goldstein for providing guidance during conceptualization of this project, and we would like to acknowledge content experts Clemens Hong, Ming Tai-Seale, and Brook Watts for reviewing and contributing to the list of patient engagement barriers that formed the basis of interviews.

Funding

The study was supported by Veterans Affairs HSR&D Career Development Awards (CDA 12-173 and CDA 15-257) and a Stanford University School of Medicine MedScholars grant. Funding agencies had no role in the study’s design, conduct, or reporting.

Compliance with ethical standards

This study was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board.

Prior presentations

This work was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, May 12, 2016 in Hollywood, FL, and at AcademyHealth on June 25, 2018 in Seattle, WA.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11606_2018_4608_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Hasselman D. (Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc. ). Super-Utilizer Summit: Common Themes from Innovative Complex Care Management Programs. 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blumenthal D, Chernof B, Fulmer T, Lumpkin J, Selberg J. Caring for High-Need High-Cost Patients — An Urgent Priority. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2016(375):909–911.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bodenheimer T. (Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc.). Strategies to Reduce Costs and Improve Care for High-Utilizing Medicaid Patients: Reflections on Pioneering Programs. 2013.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McCarthy D, Ryan J, Klein S. Models of care for high-need, high-cost patients: An evidence synthesis. Vol. 31: The Commonwealth Fund; 2015.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mann C. Medicaid and CHIP: On the Road to Reform. Alliance for Health Reform/Kaiser Family Foundation. 2011. www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/KFFAlliance_FINAL-1971.ppt. Accessed 04/03/18.
  6. 6.
    Sommers A, Cohen M. Medicaid's High Cost Enrollees: How Much Do They Drive Program Spending? Kaiser Commission for Medicaid and the Uninsured. Washington, D.C. 2006.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Conwell LJ, Cohen JW. AHRQ Statistical Brief #73: Characteristics of persons with high medical expenditures in the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population, 2002. 2005. http://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st73/stat73.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
  8. 8.
    Congressional Budget Office. High-cost Medicare beneficiaries. A CBO Paper. 2005. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/63xx/doc6332/05-03-medispending.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
  9. 9.
    Zulman DM, Pal Chee C, Wagner TH, Yoon J, Cohen DM, Holmes TH, Ritchie C, Asch SM. Multimorbidity and healthcare utilisation among high-cost patients in the US Veterans Affairs Health Care System. BMJ Open. 2015;5(4).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Yee T, Lechner A, Carrier E. High-Intensity Primary Care: Lessons for Physician and Patient Engagement. National Institute for Health Care Reform. 2012;9.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    California Healthcare Foundation, California Quality Collaborative. Complex Care Management Toolkit. 2012. http://www.calquality.org/storage/documents/cqc_complexcaremanagement_toolkit_final.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
  12. 12.
    Boult C, Reider L, Leff B, Frick KD, Boyd CM, Wolff JL, Frey K, Karm L, Wegener ST, Mroz T, Scharfstein DO. The effect of guided care teams on the use of health services: Results from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(5):460–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dorr D, Wilcox AB, Brunker CP, Burdon RE, Donnelly SM. The effect of technology-supported, multidisease care management on the mortality and hospitalization of seniors. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(12):2195–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Counsell SR, Callahan CM, Clark DO, Tu W, Buttar AB, Stump TE, Ricketts GD. Geriatric care management for low-income seniors: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298(22):2623–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blash L, Chapman S, Dower C. The Special Care Center - A joint venture to address chronic disease. Center for the Health Professions Research Brief. 2011.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reuben DB. Physicians in supporting roles in chronic disease care: The CareMore model. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(1):158–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Milstein A, Kothari P. Are higher-value care models replicable? Health Affairs Blog. 2009. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/10/20/are-higher-value-care-models-replicable/. Accessed 04/03/18.
  18. 18.
    Shumway M, Boccellari A, O'Brien K, Okin RL. Cost-effectiveness of clinical case management for ED frequent users: Results of a randomized trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(2):155–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sledge WH, Brown KE, Levine JM, Fiellin DA, Chawarski M, White WD, O'Connor PG. A randomized trial of primary intensive care to reduce hospital admissions in patients with high utilization of inpatient services. Disease Management. 2006;9(6):328–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bell J, Mancuso D, Krupski T, Joesch JM, Atkins DC, Court B, West II, Roy-Byrne P. (Center for Healthcare Improvement for Addictions Mental Illness and Medically Vulnerable Populations, UW Medicine Harborview Medical Center). A randomized controlled trial of King County Care Partners’ Rethinking Care Intervention: Health and social outcomes up to two years post-randomization. 2012.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zulman DM, Pal Chee C, Ezeji-Okoye SC, Shaw JG, Holmes TH, Kahn JS, Asch SM. Effect of an Intensive Outpatient Program to Augment Primary Care for High-Need Veterans Affairs Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(2):166–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Center for Advancing Health. A new definition of patient engagement: what is engagement and why is it important? 2010. http://www.cfah.org/pdfs/CFAH_Engagement_Behavior_Framework_current.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
  23. 23.
    Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, Sweeney J. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Affairs. 2013;32(2):223–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mittler JN, Martsolf GR, Telenko SJ, Scanlon DP. Making sense of "consumer engagement" initiatives to improve health and health care: a conceptual framework to guide policy and practice. Milbank Q. 2013;91(1):37–77.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hibbard JH, Greene J. What the evidence shows about patient activation: better health outcomes and care experiences; fewer data on costs. Health Affairs. 2013;32(2):207–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. 2008/10/01 ed: Medical Research Council; 2008.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zulman DM, Ezeji-Okoye SC, Shaw JG, Hummel DL, Holloway KS, Smither SF, Breland JY, Chardos JF, Kirsh S, Kahn JS, Asch SM. Partnered Research in Healthcare Delivery Redesign for High-Need, High-Cost Patients: Development and Feasibility of an Intensive Management Patient-Aligned Care Team (ImPACT). J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(4):861–869.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    O'Brien CW, Breland JY, Slightam C, Nevedal A, Zulman DM. Engaging high-risk patients in intensive care coordination programs: The Engagement through CARInG Framework. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2018;8(3):351–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saldana J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Third ed Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2015.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brown RS, Peikes D, Peterson G, Schore J, Razafindrakoto CM. Six features of Medicare coordinated care demonstration programs that cut hospital admissions of high-risk patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012;31(6):1156–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hong CS, Siegel AL, Ferris TG. Caring for high-need, high-cost patients: what makes for a successful care management program? 2014.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McWilliams JM. Cost Containment and the Tale of Care Coordination. New England Journal of Medicine. 2016;375(23):2218–2220.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ganguli I, Orav EJ, Weil E, Ferris TG, Vogeli C. What do high-risk patients value? Perspectives on a care management program. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(1):26–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Davis E, Tamayo A, Fernandez A. "Because somebody cared about me. That's how it changed things": homeless, chronically ill patients' perspectives on case management. PLoS One. 2012;7(9):e45980.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Mao AY, Willard-Grace R, Dubbin L, Aronson L, Fernandez A, Burke NJ, Finch J, Davis E. Perspectives of Low-Income Chronically Ill Patients on Complex Care Management. Fam Syst Health. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine (This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Donna M. Zulman
    • 1
    • 2
  • Colin W. O’Brien
    • 3
  • Cindie Slightam
    • 2
  • Jessica Y. Breland
    • 2
  • David Krauth
    • 2
  • Andrea L. Nevedal
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Primary Care and Population Health Stanford University School of MedicineStanfordUSA
  2. 2.Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care SystemMenlo ParkUSA
  3. 3.School of MedicineStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations