April Savoy

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/1805/35566

Browse

Browsing April Savoy by Subject "Co-management of care"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    50048 Closing the cross-institutional referral loop: Assessment of consultation note quality
    (Cambridge University Press, 2021-03-30) Savoy, April; Sangani, Amee; Weiner, Michael; Medicine, School of Medicine
    IMPACT: Results will inform the design of health information technologies that assess and improve clinicians’ interpersonal communication supporting co-management of care across health institutions. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: Poor communication and co-management of comorbidities during the referral process increase physician workload, patient burden, and safety risks. In this preliminary study, our objective was to understand how consultants’ notes support physician collaboration within and across health care institutions. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We reviewed medical records. Accessing the Indiana Network for Patient Care database, consultation notes were randomly selected from four specialties: cardiothoracic surgery, neurology, rheumatology, and oncology. These specialties were identified, in advance, as challenging in interprofessional communication. The notes reviewed were associated with in-person consultations at a medical network in the Midwest from 2016 to 2019, including internal and cross-institutional (i.e., external) referrals. The Quality of Consult Assessment tool was adapted to assess note quality and co-management facilitation. Two researchers reviewed all records independently. A consensus meeting was then held to discuss and resolve discrepancies. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Medical records of ten patients with comorbidities were reviewed. The mean age was 67 (SD= 12 years); one patient was a child. All consultation notes contained clinical recommendations. Seventy percent of notes referred to explicit consultant responsibilities. Conversely, only one contained explicit responsibilities for referrers. Medical records denoted reliance on support staff to send messages among referrers, consultants, and patients via phone calls and facsimile. The use of fax machines to send medical records to referrers was more prominent after cross-institutional consultations. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: Clinical documentation supported specialty referrals for transitions of care rather than co-management of care. Accessing medical records across institutions contributed to a lack of clinical context, and workflow inefficiencies, when attempting to co-manage clinical care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of Consultation Notes Within and Across Institutions: A Preliminary Study
    (Indiana University Medical Student Program for Research and Scholarship, 2020) Sangani, Amee; Savoy, April; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Background/Objective: Patients with multiple chronic conditions require specialty consultations both within and across institutions for effective co-management of comorbidities. Poor communication during the referral process increases physician workload, patient burden and risks. Successful co-management relies on bi-directional information flow that supports interpersonal communication and establishment of clear tasks and responsibilities among physicians. However, flow of health information is often limited to specific health network access, phone calls, or faxes. Interpersonal communication is dependent on limited encounter notes. In this preliminary study, our objective was to understand how consultants’ notes support physician collaboration within and across health care institutions. Project Methods: To assess consultants’ notes, outpatient charts were randomly selected from the Indiana Network for Patient Care database representing consultations with five different specialties within the IU Health network, including referrals from within and outside of IU Health. The Quality of Consult Assessment tool was adapted to assess content of notes, emphasizing clinical recommendations, distribution of tasks and responsibilities, and communication plans. Results: Our sample included ten charts for patients who had comorbidities. All notes contained clinical recommendations that included an assessment and plan. 70% of notes contained explicit responsibilities of the consultants. Conversely, only one contained explicit responsibilities for referrers. Charts denoted reliance on support staff to send messages between referrers, consultants, and patients via phone and fax. Phone calls and faxes were more prominent in referrals across institutions. Conclusion and Impact: Our preliminary findings indicate that current clinical documentation supports specialty referrals for transitions of care rather than co-management of care. Difficulties in accessing patient charts across institutions leads to a lack of clinical context and workflow inefficiencies when attempting to co-manage care. These findings demonstrate negative implications in health outcomes for patients with multiple comorbidities that require more care coordination within and across institutions.