Engaging High-Need Patients in Intensive Outpatient Programs: A Qualitative Synthesis of Engagement Strategies
Intensive outpatient programs address the complex medical, social, and behavioral needs of individuals who account for disproportionate healthcare costs. Despite their promise, the impact of these programs is often diminished due to patient engagement challenges (i.e., low rates of patient participation and partnership in care).
The objective of this study was to identify intensive outpatient program features and strategies that increase high-need patient engagement in these programs.
Twenty program leaders and clinicians from 12 intensive outpatient programs in academic, county, Veterans Affairs, community, and private healthcare settings.
A questionnaire and semi-structured interviews were used to identify common barriers to patient engagement in intensive outpatient programs and strategies employed by programs to address these challenges. We used content analysis methods to code patient engagement barriers and strategies and to identify program features that facilitate patient engagement.
The most common barriers to patient engagement in intensive outpatient programs included physical symptoms/limitations, mental illness, care fragmentation across providers and services, isolation/lack of social support, financial insecurity, and poor social and neighborhood conditions. Patient engagement strategies included concrete services to support communication and use of recommended services, activities to foster patient trust and relationships with program staff, and counseling to build insight and problem-solving capabilities. Program features that were identified as enhancing engagement efforts included: 1) multidisciplinary teams with diverse skills, knowledge, and personalities to facilitate relationship building; 2) adequate staffing and resources to handle the demands of high-need patients; and 3) a philosophy that permitted flexibility and patient-centeredness.
Promising clinical, interpersonal, and population-based approaches to engaging high-need patients frequently deviate from standard practice and require creative and proactive staff with adequate time, resources, and flexibility to address patients’ needs on patients’ terms.
KEY WORDSpatient engagement patient-centered care primary care vulnerable populations care management
The authors would like to thank the following program representatives for their study participation and contributions to this project: Robert Carr, Anna Chodos, Elizabeth Davis, Nate L. Ewigman, Brenda Goldstein, Courtney Gray, Kathryn Holloway, Debra Hummel, Debra Keller, Michael Kern, Ann Lindsay, David Moskowitz, Kathy O’Brien, Delila Pellot, Maria C. Raven, Laura Rombach Rau, Rebeca Servin, Jonathan Shaw, Ramona Soberanis, and Kathryn Stambaugh. We would also like to thank Steven Asch and Mary Goldstein for providing guidance during conceptualization of this project, and we would like to acknowledge content experts Clemens Hong, Ming Tai-Seale, and Brook Watts for reviewing and contributing to the list of patient engagement barriers that formed the basis of interviews.
The study was supported by Veterans Affairs HSR&D Career Development Awards (CDA 12-173 and CDA 15-257) and a Stanford University School of Medicine MedScholars grant. Funding agencies had no role in the study’s design, conduct, or reporting.
Compliance with ethical standards
This study was approved by the Stanford University Institutional Review Board.
This work was presented at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, May 12, 2016 in Hollywood, FL, and at AcademyHealth on June 25, 2018 in Seattle, WA.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 1.Hasselman D. (Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc. ). Super-Utilizer Summit: Common Themes from Innovative Complex Care Management Programs. 2013.Google Scholar
- 3.Bodenheimer T. (Center for Health Care Strategies, Inc.). Strategies to Reduce Costs and Improve Care for High-Utilizing Medicaid Patients: Reflections on Pioneering Programs. 2013.Google Scholar
- 4.McCarthy D, Ryan J, Klein S. Models of care for high-need, high-cost patients: An evidence synthesis. Vol. 31: The Commonwealth Fund; 2015.Google Scholar
- 5.Mann C. Medicaid and CHIP: On the Road to Reform. Alliance for Health Reform/Kaiser Family Foundation. 2011. www.allhealth.org/briefingmaterials/KFFAlliance_FINAL-1971.ppt. Accessed 04/03/18.
- 6.Sommers A, Cohen M. Medicaid's High Cost Enrollees: How Much Do They Drive Program Spending? Kaiser Commission for Medicaid and the Uninsured. Washington, D.C. 2006.Google Scholar
- 7.Conwell LJ, Cohen JW. AHRQ Statistical Brief #73: Characteristics of persons with high medical expenditures in the U.S. civilian noninstitutionalized population, 2002. 2005. http://meps.ahrq.gov/data_files/publications/st73/stat73.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
- 8.Congressional Budget Office. High-cost Medicare beneficiaries. A CBO Paper. 2005. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/63xx/doc6332/05-03-medispending.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
- 10.Yee T, Lechner A, Carrier E. High-Intensity Primary Care: Lessons for Physician and Patient Engagement. National Institute for Health Care Reform. 2012;9.Google Scholar
- 11.California Healthcare Foundation, California Quality Collaborative. Complex Care Management Toolkit. 2012. http://www.calquality.org/storage/documents/cqc_complexcaremanagement_toolkit_final.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
- 15.Blash L, Chapman S, Dower C. The Special Care Center - A joint venture to address chronic disease. Center for the Health Professions Research Brief. 2011.Google Scholar
- 17.Milstein A, Kothari P. Are higher-value care models replicable? Health Affairs Blog. 2009. http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2009/10/20/are-higher-value-care-models-replicable/. Accessed 04/03/18.
- 20.Bell J, Mancuso D, Krupski T, Joesch JM, Atkins DC, Court B, West II, Roy-Byrne P. (Center for Healthcare Improvement for Addictions Mental Illness and Medically Vulnerable Populations, UW Medicine Harborview Medical Center). A randomized controlled trial of King County Care Partners’ Rethinking Care Intervention: Health and social outcomes up to two years post-randomization. 2012.Google Scholar
- 22.Center for Advancing Health. A new definition of patient engagement: what is engagement and why is it important? 2010. http://www.cfah.org/pdfs/CFAH_Engagement_Behavior_Framework_current.pdf. Accessed 04/03/18.
- 26.Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. 2008/10/01 ed: Medical Research Council; 2008.Google Scholar
- 27.Zulman DM, Ezeji-Okoye SC, Shaw JG, Hummel DL, Holloway KS, Smither SF, Breland JY, Chardos JF, Kirsh S, Kahn JS, Asch SM. Partnered Research in Healthcare Delivery Redesign for High-Need, High-Cost Patients: Development and Feasibility of an Intensive Management Patient-Aligned Care Team (ImPACT). J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(4):861–869.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Saldana J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. Third ed Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; 2015.Google Scholar
- 33.Hong CS, Siegel AL, Ferris TG. Caring for high-need, high-cost patients: what makes for a successful care management program? 2014.Google Scholar
- 37.Mao AY, Willard-Grace R, Dubbin L, Aronson L, Fernandez A, Burke NJ, Finch J, Davis E. Perspectives of Low-Income Chronically Ill Patients on Complex Care Management. Fam Syst Health. 2017.Google Scholar