1 / 44

Drop-In Group Medical Appointments

Drop-In Group Medical Appointments. Virginia Health Care Foundation Nurse Practitioner Roundtable April 16, 2010. Outline. Shared Medical Appointments History Idealized DIGMA DIGMA Implementation Important Concerns Summary Resources. Shared Medical Appointments.

ingramj
Download Presentation

Drop-In Group Medical Appointments

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Drop-In Group Medical Appointments Virginia Health Care Foundation Nurse Practitioner Roundtable April 16, 2010

  2. Outline • Shared Medical Appointments • History • Idealized DIGMA • DIGMA Implementation • Important Concerns • Summary • Resources

  3. Shared Medical Appointments • Shared Medical Appointments [SMA] • Multiple patients seen as a group for follow-up or routine care • Created primarily to mitigate increasingly constrained medical practice • Enhance practice efficiency • Increase patient access/satisfaction • Decrease negative health outcomes

  4. SMA Sub-Types • Drop-In Group Medical Appointment [DIGMA] • Group model focused on patients in physician’s panel • Cooperative Health Care Clinic [CHCC] • Group model focused on patient utilization or diagnosis • Physicals Shared Medical Appointment [PMSA] • Theoretically similar to DIGMA model; strong focus on physical exams

  5. History

  6. Brief History • Developed and established in 1996 by Dr. Edward Noffsinger • Psychologist at Kaiser Permanente • Model designed with general intent • Increase practice efficiency, patient health outcomes, and provider/patient satisfaction • Better manage practitioner workload

  7. Brief History • Development stimulated by confluence of three general problem streams • Providers • Decreased reimbursements, PCP shortages, increased workloads • Patients • Decreased face time with PCP, increased access to health information, decreased patient satisfaction • Theory • Increased understanding of need for holistic care, increased understanding of the complexities of chronic disease management

  8. Brief History • Dr. Noffsinger envisions use of DIGMA in multiple realms of healthcare • Chronic disease management, ambulatory care, psychiatric care, access issues, etc • Use of model has been limited • Diabetes, psychiatric care, heart conditions

  9. DIGMA According to Noffsinger

  10. Current Forms • Exists in three forms • Homogenous Model • Patients grouped by diagnosis • Heterogeneous Model • All patients invited regardless of diagnosis • Mixed-Model • Meetings segmented based upon diagnostic groupings • Cardiopulmonary, weight management/diabetes, chronic pain, gastrointestinal

  11. Ideal DIGMA Sessions • Intended to resemble series of individualized office visits in a supportive group setting • 10-20 patients • ~ 90 minute runtime • Physicians panel only • Meets weekly • Well-Staffed • head provider [MD/NP/PA], 1-2 assistants, scheduler, documenter and behaviorist

  12. Provider Definitions • Lead Provider • MD, NP, PA • Medical Assistants • RN, LPN, CNA • Behaviorist • Social worker, psychologist • Documenter • Specially trained to take notes in “real-time”

  13. Individualized • Accomplished by incorporation of 5 core actions in each session • Provider attends to patients sequentially • Provision of same medical services to each patient • Primary provider never leaves session • Exceptions: disrobing and private discussion occurs in adjacent examination room • Comprehensive and individualized charts • Consistent focus on medical care throughout session

  14. Group Atmosphere • Room should be conducive to group discussion • Brightly lit, central table/focus, attendees able to face each other • Patients informed that discussion should be positive • Behaviorist is key to facilitating discussion among group • Primary source of patient education within DIGMA is derived from proper group discussion • Guiding such discussion generally requires extensive training

  15. DIGMA Research

  16. Current Research • DIGMA specific research indicates • Enhanced productivity, patient/provider satisfaction, • Growing body of research concerning SMAs provides general consensus of improved rates in • Patient quality of life • Health outcomes • Quality of care • Patient/Provider satisfaction • Revenue streams

  17. SMA Research • Improvements in health outcomes • Decreased HBA1C levels • Improved blood glucose control • Improvements in health indicators • Decreased ER visits • Increased Primary Care visits • Improvements in health behaviors • Increased fruit/vegetable intake • Reduced consumption of high fat foods

  18. SMA Research • Improvements in patient satisfaction • Increased satisfaction of diabetic management • Increased feeling of quality of care • Improved sense of trust in provider • Improvements in health communication • Decrease in advice-seeking between site visits • Increased patient self-efficacy in provider-patient communication

  19. DIGMA Implementation

  20. Why use DIGMA • Reasons for use of DIGMA vary widely • Location, budgets, PCP levels, MCO • Common startup reasons • Overbooked or backlogged schedule • Reductions in PCPs • Similar patient bases • Repetition of advice • Better quality of care

  21. Considerations Before Startup • Facilities requirements • Room occupancy and availability • Provider requirements • PCP, medical assistants, behaviorist, documenter • Billing/fiscal requirements • Billing is not always straight forward • Initial start-up funds will be necessary however, should be made up in savings

  22. Necessary for Start-up • Leadership Support [“champion”] • One individual serves as primary planner and implementer of DIGMA program • Patient buy-in • Patients must understand and be convinced of legitimacy of DIGMA • Provider buy-in • Concerns regarding model must be addressed • Obtainment of behaviorist

  23. The Champion • Acts as lead for entire implementation • Secures administrative support • Rooms, funds, approvals from higher administrative levels • Secures providers • Engage potential providers, address provider concerns • Customizes DIGMA model to practice • Patient base, location, reimbursement concerns • Must possess thorough knowledge of DIGMA theory and practice

  24. Patient Buy-In • Patients must be convinced of DIGMA legitimacy • Radical change from standard one-on-one interaction • Introduction of model should be addressed at individual office visit • Personal setting increases perceived legitimacy • Model explanation should be three-step • Verbal explanation • Pamphlet/flyer • Personal invitation to attend

  25. Provider Buy-in • Providers are skeptics and must be shown potential and legitimacy of DIGMA model • Normally convinced by data, application to high-risk patients, and case reports of previous uses • Providers should not be ordered to conduct DIGMA • Drive for DIGMA must come from provider base • Incentives can be used to support providers • Increased flex-time on days of DIGMA conduction • Selection of provider as champion can enhance buy-in

  26. Sample Session • Room is prepped for patient arrival • Refreshments, seating, quality of room • Patients check-in • Escorted to room; medical assistant can take vital signs • Providers welcome patients • PCP examines patients individually • Behaviorist promotes group discussion concerning patients medical issues. • Documenter follows PCP • Termination of Session

  27. Barriers to successful DIGMA • Top-down dictation to providers • Providers should not be ordered to conduct DIGMA • Desire to conduct DIGMA must come from providers • Inadequate space to conduct DIGMA • DIGMA attendance and atmosphere requirements necessitate adequate space planning • Inadequate scheduling • Scheduler greatly increases chances of reaching necessary attendance • Low attendance • Productivity increases of DIGMA predicated on high attendance rates

  28. Important Issues

  29. Confidentiality • Primary source of confidentiality concerns comes from providers • Nature of DIGMA sessions inherently address some confidentially issues • Patients who attend generally comfortable with discussing personal health information in group setting • Issues of confidentiality may be addressed using Noffsinger’s six-step guidelines

  30. Noffsinger’s Six Steps • Address confidentiality in promotional materials • Clearly indicate group setting and the sharing of medical information within group • Train staff to properly refer patients • Clearly indicate that session is group visit and not extended individualized session • Confidentiality agreement drafted by legal professional • DIGMA specific release should be created; Do not borrow other release forms

  31. Noffsinger’s Six Steps • Signing of confidentiality release by attendees is mandatory • Signing of release form occurs before session. • May eventually become unnecessary as time progresses • Discussion of confidentiality during session • Behaviorist briefly discuses sharing of information and maintenance of patient anonymity • Placement of release in all patients charts • Record keeping procedure; if using electronic medical records then release can be scanned

  32. Modifications to Idealized DIGMA • Use of original DIGMA form is ideal however, real world constraints may prevent such application • Modifications to DIGMA can occur in a variety of areas • Staff • Conduction of session • Census levels

  33. Modifications to Idealized DIGMA • Staff • Documenter can be eliminated • Primary provider can take notes • Reduction in number of medical assistants • Conduction of session • Length of session time can be decreased • Individual examinations can be entirely removed from group; discussion of examination results upon return to group • Census levels • Other clinics have done well on lower than ideal census levels [4-6 patients per session]

  34. Guides • Improving Chronic Illness Care • http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/downloads/group_visit_starter_kit_copy1.doc • ImpactBC • http://www.impactbc.ca/files/documents/NHA_Group_Medical_Appointments_Manual.pdf • American Academy of Family Physicians • http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/practicemgt/quality/qitools/pracredesign/january05.html

  35. Resources

  36. Resources • Atkins, T., and E. Noffsinger. "Assessing a Group Medical Appointment Program: A Case Study at Sutter Medical Foundation." Group Practice Journal 50.April (2001): 42-49. Print. • Baurd, Stephanie, Todd Marcy, Becky Armor, Jennifer Chonlahan, and Paige Beach. "Gropu Medical Visits at a Family Medicine Center: Analysis and Resolution." Medscape: Medical News, Full-text Journal Articles & More. Web. 08 Apr. 2010. <http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/541549_2>. • Bronson, David, and Richard Maxwell. "Shared Medical Appointments: Increasing Patient Access without Increasing Physician Hours." Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine 71.5 (2004): 369-77. Cleveland Clinic. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. <http://www.ccjm.org/content/71/5/369.full.pdf+html>. • Christianson, Jon B., and Louise H. Warrick. The Buisness Case for Drop-In Group Medical Appointments: A Case Study of Luther Midelfort Mayo System. Rep. Vol. 611. Commonwealth Fund, 2003. Print. • "Clinical Microsystems :: Toolkits : Shared Medical Appointments." Dartmouth Medical School - DMS Home. Web. 08 Apr. 2010. <http://dms.dartmouth.edu/cms/toolkits/shared_medical_appointments/>. • Group Health Research Institute. Rep. Group Health Research Institute. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. <http://www.improvingchroniccare.org/downloads/group_visit_starter_kit_copy1.doc.>.

  37. Resources • "Harvard Vanguard - Shared Medical Appointments." Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates, Delivering Comprehensive Healthcare in the Boston Metro Area. Web. 08 Apr. 2010. <http://www.harvardvanguard.org/about/most/index.asp>. • ImpactBC. Confidentiality Agreement. Rep. ImpactBC. Print. • ImpactBC. Rep. ImpactBC. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. <http://www.impactbc.ca/files/documents/NHA_Group_Medical_Appointments_Manual.pdf>. • Jaber, Raja, Amy Braksmajer, and Jeffrey Trilling. "Group Visits: A Qualitative Review of Current Research." Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine 19.3 (2006): 276-90. Print. • Harris, Marianne. "Shared Medical Appointments After Cardiac Surgery-The Process of Implementing a Novel Pilot Paradigm to Enhance Comprehensive Postdischarge Care." Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 25.2 (2010): 124-29. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. <http://journals.lww.com/jcnjournal/Abstract/2010/03000/Shared_Medical_Appointments_After_Cardiac.7.aspx>. • "Group Visits (Shared Medical Appointments) -- Clinical Quality Improvement -- American Academy of Family Physicians." Home Page -- American Academy of Family Physicians. Web. 08 Apr. 2010. <http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/practicemgt/quality/qitools/pracredesign/january05.html

  38. Resources • Noffsinger, Edward B. Running Group Visits in Your Practice. New York ; Berlin: Springer, 2007. Print. • Noffsinger, Edward B. Running Group Visits in Your Practice. New York ; Berlin: Springer, 2007. Print. • Noffsinger, Edward B. Running Group Visits in Your Practice. New York ; Berlin: Springer, 2007. Print. • Noffsinger, Edward B. "Will Drop-In Group Medical Appointments (DIGMAs) Work In Practice?" The Permanente Journal 3.3 (1999): 58-67. The Permanente Journal. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. <http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/fall99pj/digma.html>. • Kirsh, Susan, Sharon Watts, Kristina Pascuzzi, Mary O'Day, David Davidson, Gerarld Strauss, Elizabeth Kern, and David Aron. "Shared Medical Appointments Based on the Chronic Care Model: a Quality Improvement Project to Address the Challenges of Patients with Diabetes with High Cardiovascular Risk." Quality and Safety in Health Care 16 (2007): 349-53. BMJ. Web. 8 Apr. 2010. <http://qshc.bmj.com/content/16/5/349.abstract>.

More Related