4.2 Article

Facilitators and Barriers to Care Coordination in Patient-centered Medical Homes (PCMHs) from Coordinators' Perspectives

期刊

出版社

AMER BOARD FAMILY MEDICINE
DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.01.150175

关键词

Delivery of Health Care; Internet; Patient-centered Care; Primary Health Care; Qualitative Research

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [R03HS020682]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Care coordinators are increasingly featured in patient-centered medical home (PCMH) projects, yet little research examines how coordinators themselves define and experience their role. This is the first study describing experiences of care coordinators across the US from their own perspectives. Methods: This qualitative study used a 5-month private, online discussion forum to gather data from 25 care coordinators from PCMH practices representing diversity in practice size, setting, and type. Participants answered questions and interacted with one another, creating an online social learning collaborative while allowing for data collection for research. Results: Coordinators identified barriers and facilitators in their work at the organization/system level, the interpersonal level, and the individual level. Some factors emerged as both barriers and facilitators, including the functionality of clinical information technology; the availability of community resources; interactions with clinicians and other health care facilities; interactions with patients; and self-care practices for mental health and wellness. Colocation and full integration into practices were other key facilitators, whereas excessive case loads and data management responsibilities were felt to be important barriers. Conclusions: While all the barriers and facilitators were important to performing coordinators' roles, relationship building materialized as key to effective care coordination, whether with clinicians, patients, or outside organizations. We discuss implications for practice and provide suggestions for further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据