» Articles » PMID: 29065454

Perceptions of Risk Stratification Workflows in Primary Care

Overview
Specialty Health Services
Date 2017 Oct 26
PMID 29065454
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Risk stratification (RS) in primary care is frequently used by policy-makers, payers, and health systems; the process requires risk assessment for adverse health outcomes across a population to assign patients into risk tiers and allow care management (CM) resources to be targeted effectively. Our objective was to understand the approach to and perception of RS in primary care practices. An online survey was developed, tested, and administered to 148 representatives of 37 primary care practices engaged in RS varying in size, location and ownership. The survey assessed practices' approach to, perception of, and confidence in RS, and its effect on subsequent CM activities. We examined psychometric properties of the survey to determine validity and conducted chi-square analyses to determine the association between practice characteristics and confidence and agreement with risk scores. The survey yielded a 68% response rate (100 respondents). Overall, participants felt moderately confident in their risk scores (range 41-53.8%), and moderately to highly confident in their subsequent CM workflows (range 46-68%). Respondents from small and independent practices were more likely to have higher confidence and agreement with their RS approaches and scores ( < 0.01). Confidence levels were highest, however, when practices incorporated human review into their RS processes ( < 0.05). This trend was not affected by respondents' professional roles. Additional work from a broad mixed-methods effort will add to our understanding of RS implementation processes and outcomes.

Citing Articles

Care delivery team composition effect on hospitalization risk in African Americans with congestive heart failure.

Williams T, Crump A, Garza M, Parker N, Simmons S, Lipschitz R PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0286363.

PMID: 37319230 PMC: 10270633. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286363.


Socially situated risk: challenges and strategies for implementing algorithmic risk scoring for care management.

Nong P, Adler-Milstein J JAMIA Open. 2021; 4(3):ooab076.

PMID: 34522847 PMC: 8433423. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooab076.


Of Screening, Stratification, and Scores.

Knoppers B, Bernier A, Moreno P, Pashayan N J Pers Med. 2021; 11(8).

PMID: 34442379 PMC: 8398020. DOI: 10.3390/jpm11080736.


Risk Stratification in Primary Care: Value-Based Contributions of Provider Adjudication.

Ricci B, Sachs J, Dobbertin K, Khan F, Dorr D J Gen Intern Med. 2021; 37(3):601-607.

PMID: 34100237 PMC: 8858376. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-06896-1.


Primary care practices' ability to predict future risk of expenditures and hospitalization using risk stratification and segmentation.

Dorr D, Ross R, Cohen D, Kansagara D, Ramsey K, Sachdeva B BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021; 21(1):104.

PMID: 33736636 PMC: 7977271. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-021-01455-4.


References
1.
Harris P, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde J . Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2008; 42(2):377-81. PMC: 2700030. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010. View

2.
Hall M . Risk adjustment under the Affordable Care Act: a guide for federal and state regulators. Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2011; 7:1-12. View

3.
Billings J, Mijanovich T . Improving the management of care for high-cost Medicaid patients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2007; 26(6):1643-54. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.6.1643. View

4.
Westbrook J, Braithwaite J, Gibson K, Paoloni R, Callen J, Georgiou A . Use of information and communication technologies to support effective work practice innovation in the health sector: a multi-site study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009; 9:201. PMC: 2776590. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-201. View

5.
Braithwaite R, Stevens E, Caplan A . Is risk stratification ever the same as 'profiling'?. J Med Ethics. 2016; 42(5):325-9. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103047. View