Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

© The Johns Hopkins University and The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, 2011 Handoffs and Coordination of Care Armstrong Institute for Patient.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "© The Johns Hopkins University and The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, 2011 Handoffs and Coordination of Care Armstrong Institute for Patient."— Presentation transcript:

1 © The Johns Hopkins University and The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, 2011 Handoffs and Coordination of Care Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality Presented by: Ayse Gurses, PhD and Jill Marsteller, MPP, PhD

2 Agenda Communication versus Coordination Coordination –Care Coordination –Coordination in other disciplines Importance of Coordination Barriers to Effective Coordination Strategies to Improve Coordination Gap in Care Coordination Research Improving Coordination Across Departments Toolkit Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 2

3 Defining Communication “Reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately the message selected at another point” (Shannon & Weaver, 1949; Shannon, 2001) Creation and exchange of messages (Goldhaber, 2003) Involves continuous encoding and decoding in one’s context Has directionality and intentionality Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 3

4 Components of Communication Five essential components of communication system (Shannon & Weaver, 1949) –Information Source –Transmitter –Channel –Receiver –Destination Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 4

5 Elizabeth Dayton et al., Joint Commission Journal, Jan. 2007

6 Stage 5: Escalate Stage 1: Decide on message Stage 2: Encode Stage3: Decode Stage 4: Negotiate Groupthink, tunnel vision, low input Problems: Solutions: Psychological safety, pause points, diversity, situational awareness Ambiguous language Problems: Solutions: Structured communication tools such as SBAR, Nonverbal communication tool Fatigue, distraction, noise, closed culture Problems: Solutions: Read back Failure to speak up, bullying, judging Problems: Solutions: Assertive communication, role playing, nonverbal communication tool Failure to seek mediation Problems: Solutions: Set up clear chain of command and expectations for use Figure 2: Stages of communication, common problems and solutions

7 Defining Coordination “The joint efforts of independent communicating actors towards mutually defined goals” (NSF, 1989) “Activities required to maintain consistency within a work product or to manage dependencies within the workflow” (Curtis, 1989) Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 7

8 Defining Coordination “Managing dependencies among activities” Actors performing interdependent activities may have conflicting interests that need to be managed Complexity of a system impacts coordination Example Dependencies –Shared Resources –Task/Sub task Management Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 8 (Malone and Crowston, 1994)

9 Task Interdependencies in Coordination Pooled Interdependence –Separable sub-tasks Sequential Interdependence –Specific time-order Reciprocal Interdependence –Iterative work among members Team Interdependence –Simultaneous and multi-directional workflow Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 9 Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, McGraw-Hill.

10 Performance and Interdependency Highly interdependent groups of maintenance technicians had better performance than hybrid groups of independent and interdependent technicians Interdependent teams have better internal processes –e.g., cooperation and learning Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 10 Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and group effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40:

11 Communication and Coordination: Differences Communication is exchange of messages Coordination is the set of joint actions towards the same goal Communication facilitates coordination –e.g., patient communicates insurance issue, which helps coordinate post-discharge planning Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 11

12 Communication and Coordination Frequency, mode and medium of communication can impact coordination –Depends on the urgency and pertinence –e.g., nurse updates the electronic system twice per day on patient’s status vs. talks to the NP at least twice a day about the status –Nurse to NP communication facilitates NP’s decisions about the patient’s care Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 12

13 Care Coordination is… “the deliberate organization of patient care activities between two or more participants (including patient) involved in a patient’s care to facilitate the appropriate delivery of health care services. Organizing care involves the marshaling 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”(AHRQ 2007). Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 13

14 Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 14 Care Coordination: A Case Example

15 Care Coordination: Distributed Cognition Distributed cognition –Cognition/knowledge possessed and distributed across individuals, artifacts, and tools in the environment. –E.g., Flow of cooperative work settings Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 15 (Hazlehurst et al., 2007)

16 Care Coordination: Distributed Cognition OR RN hand off information to ICU RN –“Report Card” –ICU RN knows what and how to prepare for the incoming patient –Steps: 1.OR RN hangs “Report Card” on the OR door 2.Technician picks up “Report Card” 3.Technician gives “Report Card” to ICU RN in exchange for ICU transport bed. 4.ICU RN prepares for incoming patient Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 16

17 Importance of Care Coordination Care coordination is one of the six strategies to accomplish improved quality (IOM, 2001) Coordination of multiple people and units can: –Minimize financial risk and Maximize value of services delivered to patient (e.g., through reducing/eliminating non-value adding activities) (AHRQ, 2007) –Promote an effective patient transfer workflow— Care of patient requires activities from multiple departments (e.g., clinical and non clinical) (Abraham and Reddy, 2010) –Reduce preventable adverse events (Chen et al., 2000) –Improve patient outcomes (Mitchell et al., 2002) Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 17

18 Impacts of Care Coordination Studies in multiple areas (AHRQ, 2007) : –Especially in Chronically ill patients –Trauma, pediatric, etc. Care coordination can: –Reduce mortality (Holland et al., 2005; McAlister et al, 2004) –Reduce re-hospitalizations/re-admissions (Gohler et al., 2006) –Reduce excessive utilization of drugs (Chen et al., 2000) –Reduce medical errors (Chen et al., 2000) –Improve care provider’s satisfaction (Gittell et al., 2008) –Improve family’s and patient’s satisfaction (Weinberg et a., 2007) Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 18

19 Impact of Coordination in Other Sectors Aircraft maintenance (Suzuki et al 2006) –Lack of or wrong information delivered causing safety issues Manufacturing (Terwiesch et al., 2002) –Better planning and less perceived goal differences –Concurrent development processes requires tight coordination Service industries (Gittell, 2002) –Coordination among service providers can improve customer satisfaction Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 19

20 Barriers to Effective Care Coordination Lack of or inadequate/poorly designed technology (Abraham and Reddy, 2010) Limited understanding about the need of care coordination Lack of trust (McAllister et al., 1995) Lack of responsibility and assertiveness (Weinberg et al., 2007) Lack of awareness of other people roles and what information may be required Organizational structure (e.g., physical setting, social norm) (Solet et al., 2005) Language barrier (Solet et al., 2005) Workload Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 20

21 Example of Barriers to Effective Care Coordination No mechanism to talk about problems between units No mechanism to engage members routinely and consistently to improve care coordination between units –E.g., Key players are sometimes missing in routine QI meetings Ambiguity in time limitations –E.g., Do I need to follow up about a patient who has left my unit? Ambiguity in Boundary/Unit limitations –E.g., Is it still my patient if the patient has already left my unit? Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 21

22 Strategies to Improve Coordination Disease Management Program ( Neumeyer-Gromen et al., 2004) –Enhance coordination between care providers and a patient Case Management ( Richards & Coast, 2002) –“Cross boundary spanner” –Assign one person to coordinate care with multiple providers Interprofessional Education (Reeves 2001) –Educate professionals from multiple health areas together interactively Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 22

23 Strategies to Improve Coordination Team adaptation ( Serfaty et al. 1998) –Model-driven team strategy Prosocial orientation ( Nauta et al., 2002) –Employees show a high concern for the goals of other departments Transformation of occupation ( Bechky 2003) –Create awareness of common ground and goals These strategies can be implemented together to improve care coordination. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 23

24 Strategies to Improve Coordination Expansion of the in-group Joint problem-solving behavior Increased information to improve decisions Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 24

25 Example: Care Coordination Strategy and Outcomes (Gittell et al., 2000) Relational Coordination Measure: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Subjects: 338 care providers and 878 patients from 9 hospitals Outcomes: – Post-operative pain reduced –Length of Stay reduced Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 25

26 Gap Lack of studies looking at care coordination for surgical patient Strategies implemented to improve care coordination do not strongly promote –Effective and efficient communication –Complete and accurate information transfer between units. E.g., OR does not know what information to provide to ICU and vice versa. Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 26

27 Improving Coordination Across Departments (I-CAD) Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 27

28 Goals Thinking about keeping patients safe during entire episode of inpatient care Increased cross-unit interactions would encourage shared goals and problem-solving with respect to quality and safety issues/ initiatives across units within a hospital Improved understanding and interactions across units within a hospital

29 Conceptual Support Improvement of relationships due to: –Work on common topics –Increased exposure to problems/ successes of other units –Shared problem-solving –Creation of a super-ordinate identity Faster/ greater improvement in QI/PS issues due to: –Increased availability of information/ ideas –Benefits of multiple perspectives –Coordinated approach across units with common issues

30 Interventions Meetings of an All-unit CUSP team Sharing local safety assessment and LFD results Joint LFD investigations of common safety issues Joint designation/development of new QI initiatives Cross-unit Shadowing Face-to-face exercise examining needs across units.

31 References Curtis, B. (1989). Modeling coordination from field experiments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Organizational Computing, Coordination and Collaboration: Theories and Technologies for Computer-Supported Work. Malone, T.W., and Crowston, K. (1994). The interdisciplinary study of coordination. ACM Computing Surveys, 26(1). Shannon, C.E., and Weaver, W. (1949). The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL. National Science Foundation. (1989). A report by the NSF-IRIS Review Panel for Research on Coordination Theory and Technology. NSFF Forms and Publication Unit, National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. (2001). Mobile Computing and Communications Review 5(1). (Reprinted for the Bell System Technical Journal, 1948, Lucent Technologies) Thompson, J. D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York, McGraw-Hill. Wageman, R. (1995). “Interdependence and group effectiveness.” Administrative Science Quarterly 40: Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 31

32 References AHRQ, Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies, in Technical Review, K.G. Shojania, et al., Editors. 2007, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Institute of Medicine, Institute of Medicine: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century Terwiesch, C., C.H. Loch, and A. De Meyer, Exchanging Preliminary Information in Concurrent Engineering: Alternative Coordination Strategies. ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, (4). Gittell, J.H., Relationships between service providers and their impact on customers. Journal of Service Research, (4): p Richards S, Coast J. Interventions to improve access to health and social care after discharge from hospital: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy Jul;8(3): Neumeyer-Gromen A, Lampert T, Stark K, Kallischnigg G. Disease management programs for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Medical Care. 2004;42(12): Reeves S. A systematic review of the effects of interprofessional education on staff involved in the care of adults with mental health problems. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs Dec;8(6): Serfaty, et al., eds. Team coordination training. Making decisions under stress: Implications for individual and team training. Individual and team decision making under stress: Theoretical underpinnings, ed. Cannon-Bowers, A. Janis, and S. Eduardo. Vol. xxiii. 1998, American Psychological Association: Washington DC. Nauta, A. and K. Sanders, Causes and consequences of perceived goal differences between departments within manufacturing organizations. Journal of Occupational and Organization Psychology, Bechky, B.A., Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor. ORGANIZATION SCIENCE, (3). Abraham, J. and M.C. Reddy, Challenges to inter-departmental coordination of patient transfers: A workflow perspective. International Journal of Medical Informatics, (2): p Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 32

33 References Chen A, Brown R, Archibald N, Aliotta S, Fox PD. Best practices in coordinated care. March 22, 2000 [Accessed: January 30, 2006]; Available from: ts/downloads/CC_Full_Report.pdfhttp://www.cms.hhs.gov/DemoProjectsEvalRp ts/downloads/CC_Full_Report.pdf Mitchell G, Del Mar C, Francis D. Does primary medical practitioner involvement with a specialist team improve patient outcomes? A systematic review. Br J Gen Pract Nov;52(484): Gohler A, Januzzi JL, Worrell SS, et al. A systematic meta-analysis of the efficacy and heterogeneity of disease management programs in congestive heart failure. J Card Fail Sep;12(7): Gittell, J.H., et al., Impact of Relational Coordination on Job Satisfaction and Quality Outcomes: a Study of Nursing Homes. Human Resource Management Journal, Weinberg, D.B., et al., Beyond our walls: Impact of patient and provider coordination across the continuum on outcomes for surgical patients. Health Services Research, (1p1): p Holland, R., et al., Systematic review of multidisciplinary interventions in heart failure. Heart, (7): p McAlister FA, Stewart S, Ferrua S, McMurray JJ. Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol Aug 18;44(4): Hazlehurst, B., C.K. McMullen, and P. Gorman, Distributed cognition in the heart room: How situation awareness arises from coordinated communications during cardiac surgery. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, : p Gittell, J.H., et al., Impact of relational coordination on quality of care, postoperative pain and functioning, and length of stay: a nine-hospital study of surgical patients. Med Care, (8): p Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality 33


Download ppt "© The Johns Hopkins University and The Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, 2011 Handoffs and Coordination of Care Armstrong Institute for Patient."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google