Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 189
7
Engaging Patients, Families,
and Communities
In June 2011, Alvin, a terminally ill patient with end-stage pulmo-
nary fibrosis, was hospitalized for pneumonia. His doctor, a spe-
cialist in lung disease at a top academic medical center, gave Alvin
100 percent oxygen and powerful antibiotics and steroids, but his
condition quickly deteriorated. Faced with the choice of intubation
and a mechanical ventilator or palliative care, Alvin chose to forgo
life support and spend his last days at home with his family. His
family was given a prescription for morphine with little instruction
on how to use it appropriately; when they tried to fill the prescrip-
tion, several pharmacies refused. Despite the hospital’s orders for
oxygen to be sent home, Alvin’s family found that the oxygen
supplied was insufficient for his needs. The emergency medical
technicians who took Alvin home offered only one solution—to
bring him back to the hospital. Trying to honor his wishes, the
family refused. Five hours after leaving the hospital, Alvin was in
pain and struggling for breath. Since it was a Saturday evening,
hospice personnel were off duty; Alvin’s family had to arrange for
a private-duty nurse to help them care for him in his final hours.
After he passed away, a hospice nurse finally arrived, apologized,
and instructed his family on how to dispose of the remaining vial of
morphine correctly. Alvin’s case highlights the critical importance
of all members of the care team—family members, clinicians, and
other health care providers—working together to overcome system
complexity and poorly aligned incentives to ensure patient-centered
189
OCR for page 190
190 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
care, as well as the ways in which the health care system falls short
on this critical dimension (Winakur, 2012).
Clinicians and health care staff work tirelessly to care for their patients
in an increasingly complex, inefficient, and stressful environment. However,
the structure, incentives, and culture of the system in which they work are
often—perhaps usually—poorly aligned to support their efforts to respond
to patients’ needs as their core priority. Recognizing the imperative to center
on the patient, a learning health care system is one in which patients and
their families are key drivers of the design and operation of the learning
process. When patients, their families, other caregivers, and the public are
full, active participants in care, health, the experience of care, and economic
outcomes can be substantially improved.
Crossing the Quality Chasm underscores patient-centeredness as a core
aim of the health care system, yet care often fails to meet this aim (IOM,
2001). Despite the Quality Chasm’s call to action more than a decade ago,
patient-centered care still is not the norm, and users continue to find the
health care system uncoordinated and stressful to navigate. As the complex-
ity of the system continues to grow with advances in science (Chapter 2),
patient engagement takes on increased importance as a means of ensuring
that patients can find the right care for their individual characteristics,
needs, preferences, and circumstances.
In these complex situations, patients and clinicians both need to be
involved for optimal care. Clinicians supply information and advice based
on their scientific expertise in treatment and intervention options, along
with potential outcomes. Patients, their families, and other caregivers bring
personal knowledge on the suitability—or lack thereof—of different treat-
ments for the patient’s circumstances and preferences. Information from
both sources is needed to select the right care option. It is important to note
that patient-centered care does not mean simply agreeing to every patient
request. Rather, it entails meaningful engagement on the options avail-
able in order to understand the patient and establish a dialogue between
patient and clinician on the evidence and the decisions in play (Epstein et
al., 2010; Fowler et al., 2011). The provision of patient-centered care can
be complex and time-consuming, and requires broad involvement of the
patient, the family, and the care team to consider all of the issues affecting
the patient’s care.
This chapter explores the ways in which a learning health care system
can fill some of the gaps in orienting and coordinating the U.S. health
care system around people’s needs. First, the chapter considers what is
currently known about focusing the health care system on people’s needs
and preferences, sets forth a vision for how the system could be improved
OCR for page 191
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 191
in this regard, and summarizes the benefits of moving toward that vision.
The chapter then investigates how this knowledge can be applied at dif-
ferent levels of the health care system, from the patient care experience to
the broader system. Next is a discussion of communities of care and how
they can incorporate those stakeholders not normally included in the health
care system. The chapter concludes with recommendations for realizing
the vision of a health care system that engages patients, families, and com-
munities. Throughout, the discussion highlights ways in which a learning
health care system can better incorporate patients, families, and the public
in managing health and health care.
CENTERING CARE ON PEOPLE’S NEEDS AND PREFERENCES
Informed and engaged patients, invested in their own health care as
well as in the improvement of the broader health care system, are crucial
to a learning system. Patients bring unique and important perspectives
on their own care, on the experience in health care organizations, and on
the coordination and cooperation among various elements of their care.
Unfortunately, patients, their families and other caregivers, and the public
all too often are not meaningfully engaged in care or as partners in its
improvement. Moving to the vision of a system centered on people’s needs
and preferences has the potential to bring multiple benefits for patients, the
health care system, and the nation.
A Focus on the Patient
As noted, more than 10 years after Crossing the Quality Chasm high-
lighted the crucial role of patient-centered care, such care still is not the
norm, and patients continue to find the health care system uncoordinated
and stressful to navigate. A 2011 survey of public views of the health care
system found that patients have difficulty accessing care, experience poor
care coordination, and want a system that is more integrated and patient-
centered. Seven of 10 adults surveyed reported difficulty in making doctor’s
appointments when they needed them, getting advice over the phone, or
receiving care after hours. Nearly half of adults reported problems with
care coordination, notification of test results, and communications between
primary care providers and specialists, and one-third said the health care
system was poorly organized (Stremikis et al., 2011).
The lack of patient focus is particularly evident in patient communica-
tions, especially about care options. Surveys of patients who have recently
made a medical decision have found that those patients often did not re-
ceive critical information about the risks and benefits of the treatment and
intervention choices under consideration (Fagerlin et al., 2010; Lee et al.,
OCR for page 192
192 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
2011, 2012; Sepucha et al., 2010). These patients also reported that their
clinicians stressed the benefits of interventions more than they discussed
the risks, and asked patients about their preferences only half of the time
(Zikmund-Fisher et al., 2010). Because modern health care often offers
multiple interventions for a given condition, each with its own benefits,
side effects, and costs, identifying the most valuable intervention for each
patient requires both that patients be well informed about the options and
that clinicians be aware of their patients’ individual circumstances, prefer-
ences, and needs.
The lack of patient focus in the health care system also is evident in
patient transitions between care settings. Patients often report that care
transitions, such as being discharged from the hospital, are abrupt. Patients
often receive little information about what the next steps are in their care,
when they can resume activities, what side effects or complications they
should monitor, or whom they can approach with questions about their
recovery. In other cases, patients receive too much information at the time
of discharge, stressing their ability to remember and apply this information
over the transition period. As a result of poor transitions, almost one-fifth
of hospitalized Medicare patients are rehospitalized within 30 days, often
without seeing their primary care provider in the interim (Jencks et al.,
2009). Communications between primary care practitioners and special-
ists often lack critical information, and hospitals often either do not notify
primary care practitioners when their patients are discharged or relay in-
sufficient information (Bodenheimer, 2008). Transitions may be even less
effective and more complex when patients’ needs extend beyond traditional
health care to include a broader array of health and human services, such as
long-term care; mental health and substance use care; and social, economic,
and community services related to wellness and healthy lifestyles.
Foundational Elements of Patient-Centered Care
Part of the challenge is that the notion of patient-centeredness simply
is not embedded in the care culture and often feels foreign, even disruptive,
to clinicians unfamiliar with the concept (Berwick, 2009). Because invest-
ments in moving toward patient-centered care currently are being made on
a large scale, developing a working definition of patient- or person-centered
care is a matter of some urgency, especially given that patient perspectives
will soon be factored into Medicare value-based payments to hospitals.1
Absent this framework, it will be impossible to assess the progress of ini-
tiatives toward the goal of improving patient focus. The difficulty is that
1 atient
P Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 111th Congress (March
23, 2010).
OCR for page 193
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 193
multiple definitions of patient- or person-centered care exist, each captur-
ing important aspects of this type of care. Moreover, the concept itself has
multiple names, ranging from “patient-centered care,” to “patient- and
family-centered care,” to “patient activation,” to “patient engagement,”
to “public engagement.”
Another challenge is determining who needs to be involved. Almost
every person is a past, present, or future patient of the health care system.
Moreover, each person often receives care from family caregivers, relatives,
friends, and neighbors who support and assist those coping with both acute
and chronic health problems, and who are vital to the patient throughout
the care experience. While the term “patients” is used here for brevity,
it always refers to patients, family and other caregivers, and the public.
Similarly, the term “communities” includes all forms of community, such
as those defined by geography, culture, disease or condition, occupation,
and workplace.
Recognizing the complexity of the terms involved, several individuals
and organizations have developed definitions for patient-centered care. One
advocate for promoting patient-centered care defines it as “the experience
(to the extent the informed, individual patient desires it) of transparency,
individualization, recognition, respect, dignity, and choice in all matters,
without exception, related to one’s person, circumstances, and relationships
in health care” (Berwick, 2009). The Institute for Patient- and Family-Cen-
tered Care outlines four concepts that underlie patient-centered care: respect
and dignity, information sharing, participation, and collaboration (Institute
for Patient- and Family-Centered Care, 2011). The National Quality Fo-
rum’s National Priorities Partnership characterizes patient- entered care as
c
health care that “honors each individual patient and family, offering voice,
control, choice, skills in self-care, and total transparency, and that can and
does adapt readily to individual and family circumstances, and to differing
cultures, languages, and social backgrounds” (NPP, 2010).
This chapter builds on the definition of patient-centered care outlined
in Crossing the Quality Chasm: “providing care that is respectful of and
responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensur-
ing that patient values guide all clinical decisions” (IOM, 2001, p. 40). The
concept encompasses multiple dimensions, including respect for patients’
values, preferences, and needs; coordination and integration of care; infor-
mation, communication, and education; physical comfort; emotional sup-
port; and involvement of family and friends. Crossing the Quality Chasm
outlines several principles to help the system provide this kind of care:
care should be based on continuous healing relationships, care should be
customized according to patient needs and values, the patient should be
the source of control, knowledge should be shared and information should
flow freely, information should be provided to patients transparently, and
OCR for page 194
194 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
the patient’s needs should be anticipated (IOM, 2001). In short, the patient
should be considered in all aspects of care and care delivery.
Benefits of Patient-Centered Care
A growing body of evidence highlights the potential benefits of patient-
centered care for clinical outcomes, health, satisfaction among health care
workers, and providers’ financial performance. For example, several hos-
pitals that encourage patient-centered care by paying greater attention to
patient needs and preferences, as well as care coordination, have found
that adverse events decrease, employee retention increases, operating costs
decrease, malpractice claims decline, lengths of stay are shorter, and the
hospital’s costs per case decrease (Charmel and Frampton, 2008; Epstein
et al., 2010).
Patient and family involvement in decision making has been associated
in primary care settings with reduced pain and discomfort, faster recovery
in physical health, and improvements in emotional health (Stewart et al.,
2000). Similarly, heart attack patients who did not receive patient-centered
care were found to have worse long-term outcomes, such as overall health
and likelihood of experiencing chest pains, than patients who received such
care (Fremont et al., 2001). A study of patient-centered nursing interven-
tions for cancer patients found that the interventions were correlated with
improved patient self-representation, optimism, and sense of well-being
(Radwin et al., 2009).
Patient-centered care also has been found to correlate with a patient’s
ability to undertake personal health maintenance and adhere to complex
treatment regimens. An observational study of Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts employees found that physicians’ knowledge of their patients and
patients’ trust in their physicians strongly influenced whether patients com-
pleted the recommended treatment regimen (Safran et al., 1998). Similarly,
HIV patients who reported that their clinician knew them “as a person”
had higher odds of receiving and completing highly active antiretroviral
therapy, as well as better health outcomes, relative to other HIV patients
(Beach et al., 2006). These studies underscore the potential role of patient-
centered care in improving the health outcomes from a therapy or interven-
tion that relies on patient self-management, including many therapies for
chronic diseases.
In addition, patient-oriented care has been associated with decreased
utilization of resources. Studies have found that patient-centered communi-
cation in primary care visits correlates with fewer diagnostic tests and refer-
rals (Epstein et al., 2005; Stewart et al., 2000). A similar study found that
patients who received less patient-centered care incurred 51 percent higher
annual charges relative to patients who received more patient-centered care
OCR for page 195
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 195
(Bertakis and Azari, 2011). Further, well-informed patients often choose
less aggressive and costly therapies; one study found that informed patients
were up to 20 percent less likely than other patients to choose elective sur-
gery (O’Connor et al., 2009; Stacey et al., 2011).
Yet not all care delivered in the name of patient-centeredness reduces
costs or improves outcomes. For example, one study found that patient-
centeredness was associated with better outcomes but also higher costs
(Bechel et al., 2000). Other studies have yielded mixed results with respect
to cost, quality, and value for care models that aim to implement different
aspects of patient-centeredness, such as disease management and care coor-
dination programs (Nelson, 2012; Peikes et al., 2009). This inconsistency of
results stems in part from the difficulty of identifying what truly constitutes
patient-centered care (Epstein and Street, 2011; Hudon et al., 2011). Con-
fusion about the implications of patient-centered care can stymie the efforts
of well-meaning individuals and organizations, producing changes that are
superficial, fail to address underlying challenges, and add little value to the
experience. In the name of patient-centeredness, for example, some health
care organizations have adopted luxury, hotel-like amenities; added new
technology; or renovated their facilities. Although some of these initiatives
may enhance the patient’s experience, they do not achieve the true goals of
patient-centered care and may increase costs while not improving care qual-
ity or outcomes. Patient-centered care must be implemented in a way that
directly addresses the patient’s needs and preferences and supports those
goals most important to improving quality, health, and value.
Moreover, establishing a causal link between different aspects of patient
engagement and ultimate outcomes can be difficult. For example, several
studies have shown a link between patient-centered care and measures of
patient experience, which in turn have been linked to better health out-
comes (Beach et al., 2006; Browne et al., 2010; Mead and Bower, 2002;
Stewart, 1995). Yet researchers are only beginning to understand the chain
of causality through which patient-centered care techniques, such as com-
munication, contribute to better health outcomes (Epstein and Street, 2011;
Street et al., 2009). Additional research is needed to understand how dif-
ferent patient-centered techniques produce direct and indirect outcomes—
from physical and emotional health, to the ability to manage one’s care, to
improved decision-making ability.
Conclusion 7-1: Improved patient engagement is associated with
better patient experience, health, and quality of life and better
economic outcomes, yet patient and family participation in care
decisions remains limited.
OCR for page 196
196 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
Related findings:
• Patients often are insufficiently involved in care decisions. Fewer
than half of patients receive clear information on the benefits and
trade-offs of the treatments for their condition, and fewer than half
are satisfied with their level of control in medical decision making
(see also Chapter 2).
• Patient-centered care has been correlated with better health care
outcomes and quality of life, as well as other benefits. The use of
patient-centered care in a primary care setting has been associ-
ated with reduced pain and discomfort, faster recovery in physical
health, and improvements in emotional health.
• If implemented properly, meaningful engagement of patients in
their own care has the potential to reduce costs. For example, it
has been reported that informed patients are up to 20 percent less
likely than other patients to choose elective surgery.
ENGAGING PATIENTS AS ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS IN THEIR CARE
Patients and the public across many diverse demographic groups have
shown a desire to become more involved in their care and more informed
about their health (Frosch et al., 2012; President’s Commission for the
Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Re-
search, 1982). For example, 80 percent of Internet users now seek health
information online, making this the third most popular Internet activity
(Fox, 2011). After a doctor’s appointment, individuals seek out informa-
tion on diagnoses, tests, and prescriptions to learn more (Diaz et al., 2002).
While this online information is variable in quality and should be viewed
with caution, this growing interest in health represents an opportunity to
increase patients’ involvement in their own care, in the care of their loved
ones, and in the improvement of the overall system. It further highlights
new roles for health professionals in partnering with patients to share
reliable online sources of health information (Alston and Paget, 2012).
Moreover, the development of new models of care delivery, such as patient-
centered medical homes, health homes, and accountable care organizations
(ACOs), offers opportunities to incorporate patient engagement. This sec-
tion explores patient engagement at multiple levels—from the personal rela-
tionship of patients with their health care providers, to patients’ experience
while being treated in a health care organization, to the interaction of pa-
tients with the broader system, to patients’ management of their own care.
OCR for page 197
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 197
Engaging Patients at the Care Delivery Level
Increased patient engagement in individual interactions with practitio-
ners is needed. Some studies have found that patients and clinicians have
differing views on the importance of different health goals and health care
risks (Lee et al., 2010a,b). Other studies have found that physicians have
inaccurate perceptions of their patients’ health beliefs, assuming that their
patients’ beliefs are more aligned with their own than is actually the case.
This misperception improves when patients are able to participate actively
in the consultation (Johnson et al., 2010; Street and Haidet, 2011). How-
ever, studies have found that physicians tend to interrupt patients within 15
seconds of their beginning to speak at the outset of a visit, while uninter-
rupted patients tend to conclude their remarks in under a minute (Beckman
and Frankel, 1984). These studies highlight the need to prepare health care
professionals with communication skills and techniques that optimize op-
portunities for patient engagement.
Metrics have been developed for quantifying a patient’s activation,
defined as the capability to participate in the care process (Hibbard, 2004;
Hibbard et al., 2004). These metrics make it possible both to assess whether
interventions improve activation and to customize care based on a patient’s
activation level. Evidence demonstrates that increasing a patient’s activa-
tion correlates with improvement in a variety of self-management behaviors
(Hibbard et al., 2007; Mosen et al., 2007) and that tailoring interventions
to a patient’s level of activation can improve the interventions’ impact
(Hibbard et al., 2009). Evidence also suggests that patient activation and
self-management can be enhanced through such strategies as improved
communication, motivational interviewing, shared decision making, ready
access to personal health information and providers, and increased focus
on goals that matter to patients and their families.
Communication
Patients, their families, and other caregivers can bring useful and often
critically important knowledge to bear on care if they are invited to do so.
Patients often are unable to discuss all of their concerns in a single visit.
Some interventions to remedy this limitation are straightforward; one study
found that simply asking patients whether there was “something else” to
discuss instead of “anything else” reduced the number of unmet concerns
by almost 80 percent (Heritage et al., 2007). Moreover, patients bring a
different perspective to the encounter than clinicians and will introduce
different information. For example, patients on statin drugs were far more
likely than their clinician to initiate the discussion of symptoms potentially
related to the prescription (Golomb et al., 2007).
OCR for page 198
198 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
A variety of interventions are aimed at improving the state of patient-
clinician communication (Maurer et al., 2012). Opportunities to improve
patient-centered communication skills exist throughout all levels of health
professions education, from degree to continuing education (Levinson et
al., 2010). Other tools include patient coaching and question checklists,
which are designed to assist patients in communicating with their clinicians.
In one study, coaching and the use of checklists were shown to increase
the number of questions patients asked and were associated with a mod-
est improvement in patient health outcomes (Kinnersley et al., 2007). The
implementation of these tools has yielded some success in improving clini-
cian communication behaviors, as well as patient knowledge and satisfac-
tion, although evidence is mixed on the ultimate impact on patient health
outcomes (Coulter and Ellins, 2006).
Communication tools need to be customized to patients’ circumstances,
especially their health literacy. Health literacy refers to an individual’s abil-
ity to obtain, understand, and apply health information to make appropri-
ate health decisions. Given the complexity of the field, even highly educated
people may have difficulty finding and understanding health information
and applying it to their own care or that of their loved ones (IOM, 2004).
Ensuring that patients have the tools they need to manage health informa-
tion is critical, as lower levels of health literacy have been associated with
increased hospitalizations, greater use of emergency rooms, lower use of
preventive services, and limited ability to manage complex treatment regi-
mens (Berkman et al., 2011). Given that effective communication requires
effort from two parties, those who produce health care information for
patients must consider how that information will be received and used by
patients (Eckman et al., 2012). Several useful communication techniques,
such as motivational interviewing, can promote certain health behaviors
and adherence to treatment regimens by drawing out the patient’s motiva-
tion for change (Rollnick et al., 2008). There is also a need for research on
interventions that can improve a patient’s ability to manage health informa-
tion (Berkman et al., 2011).
Shared Decision Making
While informing patients about options is important, true patient-
centered care requires a new model of decision making in which respon-
sibility is shared between patient and clinician. Implementing this model
will require a shift toward health care in which clinicians and patients
work together to manage complex conditions, and make decisions on the
basis of not only the best scientific evidence but also the patient’s biological
characteristics, preferences, values, and life circumstances. Such a decision-
making model is increasingly important for the growing number of clinical
OCR for page 199
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 199
situations in which there are multiple care options, each with different
benefits and potential harms. In these situations, where trade-offs will have
to be considered, clinicians will need to discuss the risks and benefits of
competing diagnostic and treatment options with patients and their caregiv-
ers (Collins et al., 2009).
In addition to enhanced communication techniques, tools for promot-
ing shared decision making include decision aids. Decision aids provide
balanced information on diagnostic and treatment options, including risks
and potential outcomes, and help patients consider what factors are most
important to their decision. The goal is to help patients identify the di-
agnostic technology or treatment that best meets their needs, goals, and
circumstances. Studies of such tools have found that they increase patients’
knowledge and understanding of benefits and risks and encourage them
to participate in decisions (Arterburn et al., 2011; Belkora et al., 2012;
O’Connor et al., 2004, 2007a,b; Solberg et al., 2010; Stacey et al., 2011).
Several organizations, including the International Patient Decision Aids
Standards Collaboration, have developed standards against which to vali-
date the quality of decision aids and ensure that they are accurate, unbiased,
and understandable.
The concept of patient-centered care entails customizing care according
to patient preferences along all dimensions, including the level of involve-
ment in decision making. Some patients will be interested in playing a
strong role in care decisions, while others may want to play a less active
role. Evidence suggests that the system currently does not allow patients
to realize their desired level of participation; in one study, fewer than half
of patients reported they had achieved their preferred level of control in
decision making (Degner et al., 1997). Several studies confirm that while
most patients wish to be asked their opinions and be offered choices in their
care, patients differ in how they would like to be involved in final care deci-
sions (Chung et al., 2011; Deber et al., 2007; Fineberg, 2012; Levinson et
al., 2005; Solberg et al., 2009). These studies illustrate the complex role of
patient autonomy in the provision of patient-centered care and confirm the
variability in the preferences of individual patients and patient populations
in this aspect of care. They also signal that patient satisfaction requires
patient-clinician communication that not only shares the appropriate clini-
cal information for each patient, but also provides the appropriate amount
of information and degree of autonomy in acting on the information. These
findings suggest as well that it is important for clinicians to be working in
an environment where they can function as careful listeners and coaches,
as well as experts in their field.
The implementation of new communication and decision-making para-
digms will need to be customized for different patient populations. For
vulnerable populations, including low-income individuals, racial and ethnic
OCR for page 216
216 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
community-based interventions to improve health outcomes, in-
cluding strategies related to the assessment and use of web-based
tools.
• Public and private payers should incorporate population health
improvement into their health care payment and contracting poli-
cies and accountability measures.
• Health economists, health service researchers, professional spe-
cialty societies, and measure development organizations should
continue to improve measures that can readily be applied to assess
performance on both individual and population health.
For many patients, care can be fragmented and uncoordinated, whether
they are transitioning from the hospital to a community setting or between
two different clinicians. As patient needs have grown more complex, focus-
ing on coordination and communication across all of a patient’s health care
providers has become increasingly crucial. These coordination and commu-
nication needs may be more acute when patients require services beyond the
traditional health care system, such as social and community services, for
managing their condition. Recommendation 6 outlines actions that need to
be taken to improve care transitions and coordination to provide seamless
care for patients.
Recommendation 6: Care Continuity
mprove coordination and communication within and across organiza-
I
tions. Payers should structure payment and contracting to reward ef-
fective communication and coordination between and among members
of a patient’s care team.
Strategies for progress toward this goal:
• Health care delivery organizations and clinicians, partnering with
patients, families, and community organizations, should develop
coordination and transition processes, data sharing capabilities,
and communication tools to ensure safe, seamless patient care.
• Health economists, health service researchers, professional specialty
societies, and measure development organizations should develop
and test metrics with which to monitor and evaluate the effective-
ness of care transitions in improving patient health outcomes.
• Public and private payers should promote effective care transitions
that improve patient health through their payment and contracting
policies.
OCR for page 217
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 217
Given the advantages that accrue from involving patients and commu-
nities in health care, their inclusion is a goal for a learning health care sys-
tem. Challenges are entailed in promoting this involvement, from changing
the existing culture of medicine to creating metrics that accurately measure
involvement. As noted in this chapter, there are differences between patient
involvement in care and measures such as patient satisfaction. However,
these challenges do not prevent a focus on patients in care, and each can
be overcome to allow for a health care system that continually improves
patient care.
REFERENCES
AAFP (American Academy of Family Physicians, AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics), ACP
(American College of Physicians), and (AOA) American Osteopathic Association. 2007.
Joint principles of the patient-centered medical home. http://www.pcpcc.net/content/
joint-principles-patient-centered-medical-home (accessed August 31, 2012).
Aligning Forces for Quality. 2012. AF4Q alliance overview. http://forces4quality.org/af4q-
alliances-overview (accessed May 15, 2012).
Alston, C., and L. Paget. 2012. Communicating evidence in health care: Engaging patients
for improved health care decisions. http://iom.edu/~/media/Files/Activity%20Files/
Quality/VSRT/IC%20Meeting%20Docs/ECIC%2006-07-12/Lyn%20Paget%20and%20
Chuck%20Alston.pdf (accessed August 31, 2012).
Arterburn, D. E., E. O. Westbrook, T. A. Bogart, K. R. Sepucha, S. N. Bock, and W. G.
Weppner. 2011. Randomized trial of a video-based patient decision aid for bariatric
surgery. Obesity (Silver Spring) 19(8):1669-1675.
Balik, B., J. Conway, L. Zipperer, and J. Watson. 2011. Achieving an exceptional patient and
family experience of inpatient hospital care. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare
Improvement.
Beach, M. C., J. Keruly, and R. D. Moore. 2006. Is the quality of the patient provider rela-
tionship associated with better adherence and health outcomes for patients with HIV?
Journal of General Internal Medicine 21(6):661-665.
Bechel, D. L., W. A. Myers, and D. G. Smith. 2000. Does patient-centered care pay off? Joint
Commission Journal on Quality Improvement 26(7):400-409.
Beckman, H. B., and R. M. Frankel. 1984. The effect of physician behavior on the collection
of data. Annals of Internal Medicine 101(5):692-696.
Belkora, J. K., S. Volz, A. E. Teng, D. H. Moore, M. K. Loth, and K. R. Sepucha. 2012. Impact
of decision aids in a sustained implementation at a breast care center. Patient Education
and Counseling 86(2):195-204.
Bergeson, S. C., and J. D. Dean. 2006. A systems approach to patient-centered care. Journal
of the American Medical Association 296(23):2848-2851.
Berkman, N. D., S. L. Sheridan, K. E. Donahue, D. J. Halpern, A. Viera, K. Crotty, A. Holland,
M. Brasure, K. N. Lohr, E. Harden, E. Tant, I. Wallace, and M. Viswanathan. 2011.
Health literacy interventions and outcomes: An updated systematic review. Rockville,
MD: RTI International/University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center.
Berry, L. L., A. M. Mirabito, and W. B. Baun. 2010. What’s the hard return on employee
wellness programs? Harvard Business Review 88(12):104-112, 142.
Bertakis, K. D., and R. Azari. 2011. Patient-centered care is associated with decreased health
care utilization. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 24(3):229-239.
OCR for page 218
218 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
Berwick, D. M. 2009. What “patient-centered” should mean: Confessions of an extremist.
Health Affairs (Millwood) 28(4):w555-w565.
Bielaszka-DuVernay, C. 2011. Vermont’s blueprint for medical homes, community health
teams, and better health at lower cost. Health Affairs (Millwood) 30(3):383-386.
Bodenheimer, T. 2008. Coordinating care—a perilous journey through the health care system.
New England Journal of Medicine 358(10):1064-1071.
Bonner, A., C. Schneider, and J. S. Weissman. 2010. Massachusetts strategic plan for care
transitions. Boston, MA: Massachusetts State Quality Improvement Institute.
Boulding, W., S. W. Glickman, M. P. Manary, K. A. Schulman, and R. Staelin. 2011. Relation-
ship between patient satisfaction with inpatient care and hospital readmission within 30
days. The American Journal of Managed Care 17(1):41-48.
Bradway, C., R. Trotta, M. B. Bixby, E. McPartland, M. C. Wollman, H. Kapustka, K.
McCauley, and M. D. Naylor. 2011. A qualitative analysis of an advanced practice nurse-
directed transitional care model intervention. Gerontologist 52(3):394-407.
Braunstein, S., and R. Lavizzo-Mourey. 2011. How the health and community development
sectors are combining forces to improve health and well-being. Health Affairs (Millwood)
30(11):2042-2051.
Browne, K., D. Roseman, D. Shaller, and S. Edgman-Levitan. 2010. Analysis & commentary.
Measuring patient experience as a strategy for improving primary care. Health Affairs
(Project Hope) 29(5):921-925.
Chapman, L. S. 2005. Meta-evaluation of worksite health promotion economic return studies:
2005 update. http://www.inspirationaljourneys.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Meta-
evaluation-of-worksite-health-promotion-economic-return-studies-2005-update.pdf (ac-
cessed August 31, 2012).
Charmel, P. A., and S. B. Frampton. 2008. Building the business case for patient-centered care.
Healthcare Financial Management 62(3):80-85.
Chung, G. S., R. E. Lawrence, F. A. Curlin, V. Arora, and D. O. Meltzer. 2011. Predictors of
hospitalised patients’ preferences for physician-directed medical decision-making. Journal
of Medical Ethics 38(2):77-82.
Collins, E. D., C. P. Moore, K. F. Clay, S. A. Kearing, A. M. O’Connor, H. A. Llewellyn-
Thomas, R. J. Barth, Jr., and K. R. Sepucha. 2009. Can women with early-stage breast
cancer make an informed decision for mastectomy? Journal of Clinical Oncology
27(4):519-525.
Conway, J., B. Johnson, S. Edgman-Levitan, J. Schlucter, D. Ford, P. Sodomka, and L.
Simmons. 2006. Partnering with patients and families to design a patient- and family-
centered health care system. Bethesda, MD: Institute for Family-Centered Care with
Institute for Healthcare Improvement.
Coulter, A., and J. Ellins. 2006. Patient-focused interventions: A review of the evidence. http://
www.health.org.uk/publications/research_reports/patientfocused.html (accessed June 11,
2010).
Craig, C., D. Eby, and J. Whittington. 2011. Care coordination model: Better care at lower
cost for people with multiple health and social needs. Cambridge, MA: Institute for
Healthcare Improvement.
Davis, R. E., R. Jacklin, N. Sevdalis, and C. A. Vincent. 2007. Patient involvement in patient
safety: What factors influence patient participation and engagement? Health Expecta-
tions 10(3):259-267.
Deakin, T., C. McShane, J. Cade, and R. Williams. 2005. Group based training for self-
management strategies in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews 2:CD003417.
OCR for page 219
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 219
Deber, R. B., N. Kraetschmer, S. Urowitz, and N. Sharpe. 2007. Do people want to be autono-
mous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient popula-
tions. Health Expectations 10(3):248-258.
Degner, L. F., L. J. Kristjanson, D. Bowman, J. A. Sloan, K. C. Carriere, J. O’Neil, B. Bilodeau,
P. Watson, and B. Mueller. 1997. Information needs and decisional preferences in women
with breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association 277(18):1485-1492.
Diaz, J. A., R. A. Griffith, J. J. Ng, S. E. Reinert, P. D. Friedmann, and A. W. Moulton. 2002.
Patients’ use of the Internet for medical information. Journal of General Internal Medi-
cine 17(3):180-185.
Eckman, M. H., R. Wise, A. C. Leonard, E. Dixon, C. Burrows, F. Khan, and E. Warm. 2012.
Impact of health literacy on outcomes and effectiveness of an educational intervention in
patients with chronic diseases. Patient Education and Counseling 87(2):143-151.
Epstein, R. M., and R. L. Street, Jr. 2011. The values and value of patient-centered care. An-
nals of Family Medicine 9(2):100-103.
Epstein, R. M., P. Franks, C. G. Shields, S. C. Meldrum, K. N. Miller, T. L. Campbell, and K.
Fiscella. 2005. Patient-centered communication and diagnostic testing. Annals of Family
Medicine 3(5):415-421.
Epstein, R. M., K. Fiscella, C. S. Lesser, and K. C. Stange. 2010. Why the nation needs a
policy push on patient-centered health care. Health Affairs (Millwood) 29(8):1489-1495.
Erickson, D., and N. Andrews. 2011. Partnerships among community development, public
health, and health care could improve the well-being of low-income people. Health Af-
fairs (Millwood) 30(11):2056-2063.
Fagerlin, A., K. R. Sepucha, M. P. Couper, C. A. Levin, E. Singer, and B. J. Zikmund-Fisher.
2010. Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: The decisions survey.
Medical Decision Making 30(Suppl. 5):S35-S52.
Fenton, J. J., A. F. Jerant, K. D. Bertakis, and P. Franks. 2012. The cost of satisfaction: A
national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality.
Archives of Internal Medicine 172(5):405-411.
Fields, D., E. Leshen, and K. Patel. 2010. Analysis & commentary. Driving quality gains
and cost savings through adoption of medical homes. Health Affairs (Millwood)
29(5):819-826.
Fineberg, H. 2012. From shared decision making to patient-centered decision making. Israel
Journal of Health Policy Research 1(1):6.
Fowler, F. J., Jr., C. A. Levin, and K. R. Sepucha. 2011. Informing and involving patients to
improve the quality of medical decisions. Health Affairs (Millwood) 30(4):699-706.
Fox, S. 2011. Health topics: 80% of Internet users look for health information online. Wash-
ington, DC: Pew Research Center.
Free, C., R. Knight, S. Robertson, R. Whittaker, P. Edwards, W. Zhou, A. Rodgers, J.
Cairns, M. G. Kenward, and I. Roberts. 2011. Smoking cessation support delivered
via mobile phone text messaging (txt2stop): A single-blind, randomised trial. Lancet
378(9785):49-55.
Fremont, A. M., P. D. Cleary, J. Lee Hargraves, R. M. Rowe, N. B. Jacobson, and J. Z.
Ayanian. 2001. Patient centered processes of care and long term outcomes of myocardial
infarction. Journal of General Internal Medicine 16(12):800-808.
Frosch, D. L., S. G. May, K. A. Rendle, C. Tietbohl, and G. Elwyn. 2012. Authoritarian physi-
cians and patients’ fear of being labeled ‘difficult’ among key obstacles to shared decision
making. Health Affairs (Millwood) 31(5):1030-1038.
Gao, G. G., J. S. McCullough, R. Agarwal, and A. K. Jha. 2012. A changing landscape of
physician quality reporting: Analysis of patients’ online ratings of their physicians over
a 5-year period. Journal of Medical Internet Research 14(1):e38.
OCR for page 220
220 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
Garrido, T., L. Jamieson, Y. Zhou, A. Wiesenthal, and L. Liang. 2005. Effect of electronic
health records in ambulatory care: Retrospective, serial, cross sectional study. British
Medical Journal 330(7491):581.
Glickman, S. W., W. Boulding, M. Manary, R. Staelin, M. T. Roe, R. J. Wolosin, E. M. Ohman,
E. D. Peterson, and K. A. Schulman. 2010. Patient satisfaction and its relationship with
clinical quality and inpatient mortality in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation: Car-
diovascular Quality and Outcomes 3(2):188-195.
Goetzel, R. Z., T. R. Juday, and R. J. Ozminkowski. 1999. What’s the ROI? A systematic
review of return on investment (ROI) studies of corporate health and productivity man-
agement initiatives. AWHP’s Worksite Health 6(3):12-21.
Goetzel, R. Z., D. Shechter, R. J. Ozminkowski, P. F. Marmet, M. J. Tabrizi, and E. C. Roemer.
2007. Promising practices in employer health and productivity management efforts: Find-
ings from a benchmarking study. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
49(2):111-130.
Golomb, B. A., J. J. McGraw, M. A. Evans, and J. E. Dimsdale. 2007. Physician response to
patient reports of adverse drug effects: Implications for patient-targeted adverse effect
surveillance. Drug Safety 30(8):669-675.
Gray, B. M., W. Weng, and E. S. Holmboe. 2011. An assessment of patient-based and practice
infrastructure-based measures of the patient-centered medical home: Do we need to ask
the patient? Health Services Research 47(1, Pt. 1):4-21.
Groene, O. 2011. Patient centeredness and quality improvement efforts in hospitals: Ratio-
nale, measurement, implementation. International Journal for Quality in Health Care
23(5):531-537.
Guevara, J. P., F. M. Wolf, C. M. Grum, and N. M. Clark. 2003. Effects of educational inter-
ventions for self management of asthma in children and adolescents: Systematic review
and meta-analysis. British Medical Journal 326(7402):1308.
Halamka, J. D., K. D. Mandl, and P. C. Tang. 2008. Early experiences with personal health
records. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 15(1):1-7.
Heritage, J., J. D. Robinson, M. N. Elliott, M. Beckett, and M. Wilkes. 2007. Reducing pa-
tients’ unmet concerns in primary care: The difference one word can make. Journal of
General Internal Medicine 22(10):1429-1433.
HHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2010. Multiple chronic conditions—a
strategic framework: Optimum health and quality of life for individuals with multiple
chronic conditions. Washington, DC: HHS.
Hibbard, J. H. 2004. Moving toward a more patient-centered health care delivery system.
Health Affairs (Millwood) (Suppl. Variation):VAR133-135.
Hibbard, J. H., J. Stockard, E. R. Mahoney, and M. Tusler. 2004. Development of the Patient
Activation Measure (PAM): Conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and
consumers. Health Services Research 39(4, Pt. 1):1005-1026.
Hibbard, J. H., E. R. Mahoney, R. Stock, and M. Tusler. 2007. Do increases in patient
activation result in improved self-management behaviors? Health Services Research
42(4):1443-1463.
Hibbard, J. H., J. Greene, and M. Tusler. 2009. Improving the outcomes of disease manage-
ment by tailoring care to the patient’s level of activation. American Journal of Managed
Care 15(6):353-360.
Hudon, C., M. Fortin, J. L. Haggerty, M. Lambert, and M. E. Poitras. 2011. Measuring
patients’ perceptions of patient-centered care: A systematic review of tools for family
medicine. Annals of Family Medicine 9(2):155-164.
Hurley, R. E., P. S. Keenan, G. R. Martsolf, D. D. Maeng, and D. P. Scanlon. 2009. Early
experiences with consumer engagement initiatives to improve chronic care. Health Affairs
(Millwood) 28(1):277-283.
OCR for page 221
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 221
Institute for Patient- and Family-Centered Care. 2011. Frequently asked questions. http://
www.ipfcc.org/faq.html (accessed November 11, 2011).
IOM (Institute of Medicine). 1997. Improving health in the community: A role for perfor-
mance monitoring. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
IOM. 2001. Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washing-
ton, DC: National Academy Press.
IOM. 2003. Priority areas for national action: Transforming health care quality. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2004. Health literacy: A prescription to end confusion. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
IOM. 2009. The public health effects of food deserts: Workshop summary. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2010. Value in health care: Accounting for cost, quality, safety, outcomes, and innova-
tion: Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2011a. Clinical data as the basic staple of health learning: Workshop summary. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2011b. For the public’s health: The role of measurement in action and accountability.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2011c. For the public’s health: Revitalizing law and policy to meet new challenges.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2011d. Patients charting the course: Citizen engagement in the learning health system:
Workshop summary. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
IOM. 2012a. For the public’s health: Investing in a healthier future. Washington, DC: The
National Academies Press.
IOM. 2012b. Primary care and public health: Exploring integration to improve population
health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Jencks, S. F., M. V. Williams, and E. A. Coleman. 2009. Rehospitalizations among pa-
tients in the Medicare fee-for-service program. New England Journal of Medicine
360(14):1418-1428.
Johnson, B., M. Abraham, J. Conway, L. Simmons, S. Edgman-Levitan, P. Sodomka,
J. Schlucter, and D. Ford. 2008. Partnering with patients and families to design a
patient- and family-centered health care system: Recommendations and promising prac-
tices. Bethesda, MD: Institute for Family-Centered Care and Institute for Healthcare
Improvement.
Johnson, F. R., B. Hauber, S. Ozdemir, C. A. Siegel, S. Hass, and B. E. Sands. 2010. Are
gastroenterologists less tolerant of treatment risks than patients? Benefit-risk preferences
in Crohn’s disease management. Journal of Managed Care Pharmacy 16(8):616-628.
Jones, C. A., L. T. Clement, T. Morphew, K. Y. Kwong, J. Hanley-Lopez, F. Lifson, L. Opas,
and J. J. Guterman. 2007. Achieving and maintaining asthma control in an urban pedi-
atric disease management program: The breathmobile program. Journal of Allergy and
Clinical Immunology 119(6):1445-1453.
Kaiser Family Foundation. 2011. Summary of new health reform law. 2011. Menlo Park, CA:
Kaiser Family Foundation.
Kinnersley, P., A. Edwards, K. Hood, N. Cadbury, R. Ryan, H. Prout, D. Owen, F. MacBeth,
P. Butow, and C. Butler. 2007. Interventions before consultations for helping patients
address their information needs. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews 3(3).
Kogan, D. C. 2011. How Facebook saved my son’s life. Slate. http://www.slate.com/articles/
double_x/doublex/2011/07/how_facebook_saved_my_sons_life.html (accessed May 15,
2012).
OCR for page 222
222 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
Kotelchuck, R., D. Lowenstein, and J. N. Tobin. 2011. Community health centers and com-
munity development financial institutions: Joining forces to address determinants of
health. Health Affairs (Millwood) 30(11):2090-2097.
Lasker, R. D., and Committee on Medicine and Public Health. 1997. Medicine & public
health: The power of collaboration. New York: The New York Academy of Medicine.
Lee, C. N., R. Dominik, C. A. Levin, M. J. Barry, C. Cosenza, A. M. O’Connor, A. G. Mulley,
Jr., and K. R. Sepucha. 2010a. Development of instruments to measure the quality of
breast cancer treatment decisions. Health Expectations 13(3):258-272.
Lee, C. N., C. S. Hultman, and K. Sepucha. 2010b. Do patients and providers agree about
the most important facts and goals for breast reconstruction decisions? Annals of Plastic
Surgery 64(5):563-566.
Lee, C. N., J. Belkora, Y. Chang, B. Moy, A. Partridge, and K. Sepucha. 2011. Are patients
making high-quality decisions about breast reconstruction after mastectomy? Plastic and
Reconstructive Surgery 127(1):18-26.
Lee, C. N., Y. Chang, N. Adimorah, J. K. Belkora, B. Moy, A. H. Partridge, D. W. Ollila,
and K. R. Sepucha. 2012. Decision making about surgery for early-stage breast cancer.
Journal of the American College of Surgeons 214(1):1-10.
Levinson, W., A. Kao, A. Kuby, and R. A. Thisted. 2005. Not all patients want to participate
in decision making. A national study of public preferences. Journal of General Internal
Medicine 20(6):531-535.
Levinson, W., C. S. Lesser, and R. M. Epstein. 2010. Developing physician communication
skills for patient-centered care. Health Affairs (Millwood) 29(7):1310-1318.
Linnan, L., M. Bowling, J. Childress, G. Lindsay, C. Blakey, S. Pronk, S. Wieker, and P. Roy-
all. 2008. Results of the 2004 National Worksite Health Promotion Survey. American
Journal of Public Health 98(8):1503-1509.
Litvak, E., and M. Bisognano. 2011. More patients, less payment: Increasing hospital effi-
ciency in the aftermath of health reform. Health Affairs (Millwood) 30(1):76-80.
Litvak, E., P. I. Buerhaus, F. Davidoff, M. C. Long, M. L. McManus, and D. M. Berwick.
2005. Managing unnecessary variability in patient demand to reduce nursing stress
and improve patient safety. Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety
31(6):330-338.
Longtin, Y., H. Sax, L. L. Leape, S. E. Sheridan, L. Donaldson, and D. Pittet. 2010. Patient
participation: Current knowledge and applicability to patient safety. Mayo Clinic Pro-
ceedings 85(1):53-62.
Madden, R., C. Sykes, and T. B. Ustun. 2007. World Health Organization family of interna-
tional classifications: Definition, scope and purpose. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health
Organization.
March of Dimes Perinatal Center. 2012. Peristats. http://www.marchofdimes.com/peristats/
default.aspx (accessed May 15, 2012).
Martin-Misener, R., R. Valaitis, and Strengthening Primary Health Care through Primary
Care and Public Health Collaboration Research Team. 2009. A scoping literature review
of collaboration between primary care and public health. Hamilton, ON: McMaster
University.
Maurer, M., P. Dardess, K. L. Carman, K. Frazier, and L. Smeeding. 2012. Guide to patient
and family engagement: Environmental scan report. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health-
care Research and Quality.
McGinnis, J. M., and W. H. Foege. 1993. Actual causes of death in the United States. Journal
of the American Medical Association 270(18):2207-2212.
McGinnis, J. M., P. Williams-Russo, and J. R. Knickman. 2002. The case for more active
policy attention to health promotion. Health Affairs (Millwood) 21(2):78-93.
McKnight, J. L. 1978. Politicizing health care. Social Policy 9(3):36-39.
OCR for page 223
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 223
Mead, N., and P. Bower. 2002. Patient-centered consultations and outcomes in primary care:
A review of the literature. Patient Education and Counseling 48(1):51-61.
Meltzer, D. O., and J. W. Chung. 2010. U.S. trends in hospitalization and generalist physi-
cian workforce and the emergence of hospitalists. Journal of General Internal Medicine
25(5):453-459.
Meltzer, D., W. G. Manning, J. Morrison, M. N. Shah, L. Jin, T. Guth, and W. Levinson. 2002.
Effects of physician experience on costs and outcomes on an academic general medicine
service: Results of a trial of hospitalists. Annals of Internal Medicine 137(11):866-874.
Merlis, M. 2010. Accountable care organizations. http://healthaffairs.org/healthpolicybriefs/
brief_pdfs/healthpolicybrief_23.pdf (accessed August 31, 2012).
Mosen, D. M., J. Schmittdiel, J. Hibbard, D. Sobel, C. Remmers, and J. Bellows. 2007. Is
patient activation associated with outcomes of care for adults with chronic conditions?
Journal of Ambulatory Care Management 30(1):21-29.
Naylor, M. D., D. Brooten, R. Campbell, B. S. Jacobsen, M. D. Mezey, M. V. Pauly, and J. S.
Schwartz. 1999. Comprehensive discharge planning and home follow-up of hospital-
ized elders: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association
281(7):613-620.
Naylor, M. D., L. H. Aiken, E. T. Kurtzman, D. M. Olds, and K. B. Hirschman. 2011. The
care span: The importance of transitional care in achieving health reform. Health Affairs
(Project Hope) 30(4):746-754.
Nelson, L. 2012. Lessons from Medicare’s demonstration projects on disease management and
care coordination. Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office.
Norris, M. 2011. Group prenatal care: Finding strength in numbers. National Public Radio,
July 13.
NPP (National Priorities Partnership). 2010. Patient and family engagement. http://www.
nationalprioritiespartnership.org/PriorityDetails.aspx?id=596 (accessed February 18,
2011).
O’Connor, A. M., H. A. Llewellyn-Thomas, and A. B. Flood. 2004. Modifying unwarranted
variations in health care: Shared decision making using patient decision aids. Health Af-
fairs (Millwood) (Suppl. Variation):VAR63-72.
O’Connor, A. M., D. Stacey, M. J. Barry, N. F. Col, K. B. Eden, V. Entwistle, V. Fiset, M.
Holmes-Rovner, S. Khangura, H. Llewellyn-Thomas, and D. R. Rovner. 2007a. Do
patient decision aids meet effectiveness criteria of the international patient decision aid
standards collaboration? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Decision Mak-
ing 27(5):554-574.
O’Connor, A. M., J. E. Wennberg, F. Legare, H. A. Llewellyn-Thomas, B. W. Moulton, K. R.
Sepucha, A. G. Sodano, and J. S. King. 2007b. Toward the “tipping point”: Decision aids
and informed patient choice. Health Affairs 26(3):716-725.
O’Connor, A. M., C. L. Bennett, D. Stacey, M. Barry, N. F. Col, K. B. Eden, V. A. Entwistle,
V. Fiset, M. Holmes-Rovner, S. Khangura, H. Llewellyn-Thomas, and D. Rovner. 2009.
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Data-
base of Systematic Reviews (3):CD001431.
Otani, K., B. Waterman, K. M. Faulkner, S. Boslaugh, and W. C. Dunagan. 2010. How pa-
tient reactions to hospital care attributes affect the evaluation of overall quality of care,
willingness to recommend, and willingness to return. Journal of Healthcare Management
American College of Healthcare Executives 55(1):25-37; discussion 38.
Peikes, D., A. Chen, J. Schore, and R. Brown. 2009. Effects of care coordination on hospital-
ization, quality of care, and health care expenditures among Medicare beneficiaries: 15
randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association 301(6):603-618.
OCR for page 224
224 BEST CARE AT LOWER COST
Ponte, P. R., G. Conlin, J. B. Conway, S. Grant, C. Medeiros, J. Nies, L. Shulman, P. Branowicki,
and K. Conley. 2003. Making patient-centered care come alive: Achieving full integration
of the patient’s perspective. Journal of Nursing Administration 33(2):82-90.
President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and
Behavioral Research. 1982. Making healthcare decisions. 6 vols. Vol. 1. Buffalo, NY:
W.S. Hein.
Radwin, L. E., H. J. Cabral, and G. Wilkes. 2009. Relationships between patient-centered
cancer nursing interventions and desired health outcomes in the context of the health
care system. Research in Nursing & Health 32(1):4-17.
Rollnick, S., W. R. Miller, and C. Butler. 2008. Motivational interviewing in health care:
Helping patients change behavior (applications of motivational interviewing). New York:
Guilford Press.
Rowan, M. S., W. Hogg, and P. Huston. 2007. Integrating public health and primary care.
Healthcare Policy 3(1):e160.
Safran, D. G., D. A. Taira, W. H. Rogers, M. Kosinski, J. E. Ware, Jr., and A. R. Tarlov.
1998. Linking primary care performance to outcomes of care. Journal of Family Practice
47(3):213-220.
Schillinger, D., M. Handley, F. Wang, and H. Hammer. 2009. Effects of self-management
support on structure, process, and outcomes among vulnerable patients with diabetes.
Diabetes Care 32(4):559.
Scholle, S. H., P. Torda, D. Peikes, E. Han, and J. Genevro. 2010. Engaging patients and
families in the medical home (prepared by Mathematica Policy Research under contract
no. HHSA290200900019i to2). Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality.
Scott, L., T. Morphew, M. E. Bollinger, S. Samuelson, S. Galant, L. Clement, K. O’Cull, F.
Jones, and C. A. Jones. 2011. Achieving and maintaining asthma control in inner-city
children. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology 128(1):56-63.
Sepucha, K. R., F. J. Fowler, and A. G. Mulley. 2004. Policy support for patient-centered care:
The need for measurable improvements in decision quality. Health Affairs (Millwood)
(Suppl. Variation):VAR54-62.
Sepucha, K. R., A. Fagerlin, M. P. Couper, C. A. Levin, E. Singer, and B. J. Zikmund-Fisher.
2010. How does feeling informed relate to being informed? The decisions survey. Medical
Decision Making 30(Suppl. 5):S77-S84.
Sequist, T. D., E. C. Schneider, M. Anastario, E. G. Odigie, R. Marshall, W. H. Rogers,
and D. G. Safran. 2008. Quality monitoring of physicians: Linking patients’ experi-
ences of care to clinical quality and outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine
23(11):1784-1790.
Shaller, D., and The Commonwealth Fund. 2007. Patient-centered care What does it take?
New York: The Commonwealth Fund.
Silow-Carroll, S., T. Alteras, and L. Stepnick. 2006. Patient-centered care for underserved
populations: Definition and best practices. Washington, DC: Economic and Social Re-
search Institute.
Skinner, C., and J. Finkelstein. 2008. Review of mobile phone use in preventive medicine and
disease management. Anaheim, CA: ACTA Press.
Sofaer, S., and K. Firminger. 2005. Patient perceptions of the quality of health services. Annual
Review of Public Health 26:513-559.
Solberg, L. I., S. E. Asche, L. H. Anderson, K. Sepucha, N. M. Thygeson, J. E. Madden, L.
Morrissey, and K. K. Kraemer. 2009. Evaluating preference-sensitive care for uterine
fibroids: It’s not so simple. Journal of Women’s Health 18(7):1071-1079.
OCR for page 225
ENGAGING PATIENTS, FAMILIES, AND COMMUNITIES 225
Solberg, L. I., S. E. Asche, K. Sepucha, N. M. Thygeson, J. E. Madden, L. Morrissey, K. K.
Kraemer, and L. H. Anderson. 2010. Informed choice assistance for women making
uterine fibroid treatment decisions: A practical clinical trial. Medical Decision Making
30(4):444-452.
Springgate, B. F., and R. H. Brook. 2011. Accountable care organizations and community
empowerment. Journal of the American Medical Association 305(17):1800-1801.
Stacey, D., C. L. Bennett, M. J. Barry, N. F. Col, K. B. Eden, M. Holmes-Rovner, H. Llewellyn-
Thomas, A. Lyddiatt, F. Legare, and R. Thomson. 2011. Decision aids for people fac-
ing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
(10):CD001431.
Stewart, M. A. 1995. Effective physician-patient communication and health outcomes: A
review. Canadian Medical Association Journal 152(9):1423.
Stewart, M., J. B. Brown, A. Donner, I. R. McWhinney, J. Oates, W. W. Weston, and J. Jordan.
2000. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. Journal of Family Practice
49(9):796-804.
Street, R. L., Jr., and P. Haidet. 2011. How well do doctors know their patients? Factors af-
fecting physician understanding of patients’ health beliefs. Journal of General Internal
Medicine 26(1):21-27.
Street, R. L., Jr., G. Makoul, N. K. Arora, and R. M. Epstein. 2009. How does communica-
tion heal? Pathways linking clinician-patient communication to health outcomes. Patient
Education and Counseling 74(3):295-301.
Stremikis, K., C. Schoen, and A.-K. Fryer. 2011. A call for change: The 2011 Commonwealth
Fund survey of public views of the U.S. healthcare system. Washington, DC: The Com-
monwealth Fund.
Toussaint, J. 2009. Writing the new playbook for U.S. health care: Lessons from Wisconsin.
Health Affairs (Millwood) 28(5):1343-1350.
Weingart, S. N., O. Pagovich, D. Z. Sands, J. M. Li, M. D. Aronson, R. B. Davis, D. W.
Bates, and R. S. Phillips. 2005. What can hospitalized patients tell us about adverse
events? Learning from patient-reported incidents. Journal of General Internal Medicine
20(9):830-836.
Weingart, S. N., J. Zhu, L. Chiappetta, S. O. Stuver, E. C. Schneider, A. M. Epstein, J. A.
David-Kasdan, C. L. Annas, F. J. Fowler, Jr., and J. S. Weissman. 2011. Hospitalized
patients’ participation and its impact on quality of care and patient safety. International
Journal for Quality in Health Care 23(3):269-277.
Weingarten, S. R., J. M. Henning, E. Badamgarav, K. Knight, and V. Hasselblad. 2002. Inter-
ventions used in disease management programmes for patients with chronic illness which
ones work? Meta-analysis of published reports. British Medical Journal 325(7370):925.
Winakur, J. 2012. The transition abyss. Health Affairs Blog, June 18. http://healthaffairs.org/
blog/2012/01/18/the-transition-abyss/ (accessed August 31, 2012).
Zikmund-Fisher, B. J., M. P. Couper, E. Singer, P. A. Ubel, S. Ziniel, F. J. Fowler, Jr., C. A.
Levin, and A. Fagerlin. 2010. Deficits and variations in patients’ experience with making
9 common medical decisions: The decisions survey. Medical Decision Making 30(Suppl.
5):S85-S95.
OCR for page 226
