BackgroundCare coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims).ResultsAmong the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%).ConclusionsNew measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life.

Missed, delayed, or incorrect diagnosis can lead to inappropriate patient care, poor patient outcomes, and increased cost. This systematic review analyzed evaluations of interventions to prevent diagnostic errors. Searches used MEDLINE (1966 to October 2012), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Patient Safety Network, bibliographies, and prior systematic reviews. Studies that evaluated any intervention to decrease diagnostic errors in any clinical setting and with any study design were eligible, provided that they addressed a patient-related outcome. Two independent reviewers extracted study data and rated study quality. There were 109 studies that addressed 1 or more intervention categories: personnel changes (n = 6), educational interventions (n = 11), technique (n = 23), structured process changes (n = 27), technology-based systems interventions (n = 32), and review methods (n = 38). Of 14 randomized trials, which were rated as having mostly low to moderate risk of bias, 11 reported interventions that reduced diagnostic errors. Evidence seemed strongest for technology-based systems (for example, text message alerting) and specific techniques (for example, testing equipment adaptations). Studies provided no information on harms, cost, or contextual application of interventions. Overall, the review showed a growing field of diagnostic error research and categorized and identified promising interventions that warrant evaluation in large studies across diverse settings.

Objective Short interpregnancy interval (IPI) is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm birth (PTB < 37 weeks GA). We investigated whether short IPI (< 6 months) contributes to the higher PTB frequency among non-Hispanic Blacks (NHB). Study Design Using a linked birth cohort >1.5 million California live births, we examined frequencies of short IPI between racial/ethnic groups and estimated risks by multivariable logistic regression for spontaneous PTB. We expanded the study to births 1991–2012 and utilized a ‘within-mother’ approach to permit methodologic inquiry about residual confounding. Results NHB women had higher frequency (7.6%) of short IPI than non-Hispanic White (NHW) women (4.4%). Adjusted odds ratios for PTB and short IPI were 1.64 (95%CI 1.54, 1.76) for NHW and 1.49 (1.34, 1.65) for NHB. Using within-mother analysis did not produce substantially different results. Conclusions Short IPI is associated with PTB but does not explain risk disparity between NHWs and NHBs.

No abstract