Associations of Practice Characteristics With Care Coordination Activities and Health IT Use
| Performance of All 10 Care Coordination Activities | Use of Health IT for Care Coordination (Health IT Index) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristic | Practices, %a (N = 350) | OR (95% CI)b (N = 332) | Mean Scorec (N = 350) | β Coefficientb (N = 332) | P Value |
| Overall | 21.1 | – | 5.8 | – | – |
| Practice type, | |||||
| Community health centers | 18.7 | 1.6 (0.8–3.8) | 5.4 | −0.3 | .41 |
| Health system owned | 16.3 | Ref | 5.9 | Ref | |
| Physician owned, <5 FTE clinicians | 25.0 | 1.7 (0.9–3.9) | 6.1 | 0.3 | .45 |
| Physician owned, ≥5 FTE clinicians | 25.3 | 1.5 (0.7–3.4) | 6.0 | −0.1 | .80 |
| PCMH level | |||||
| Level 1 or 2 | 16.1 | Ref | 5.4 | n/a | n/a |
| Level 3 | 22.7 | 1.6 (0.7–3.4) | 6.0 | n/a | n/a |
| Financial concern | |||||
| Less than very concerned | 23.8 | Ref | 5.9 | Ref | n/a |
| Very concerned | 14.4 | 0.4 (0.2–0.8)d | 5.6 | −0.4 | .13 |
| Have nonclinician in charge of care coordination | |||||
| No | 14.4 | Ref | 5.3 | Ref | n/a |
| Yes | 26.0 | 1.9 (1.0–3.5)d | 6.2 | 0.7 | .01 |
| Type of area | |||||
| Urban | 12.1 | Ref | 5.5 | n/a | n/a |
| Rural or suburban | 24.7 | 2.5 (1.2–5.3)d | 6.0 | n/a | n/a |
| Received consultation/collaboration help for care coordination | |||||
| No | 8.9 | Ref | 4.8 | Ref | n/a |
| Yes | 25.3 | 2.6 (1.1–6.4)d | 6.2 | 0.6 | .06 |
| Change Process Capability Questionnaire, Strategies scalee | 1.1 (1.1–1.2)f | 1.1 (1.0–1.2)d,f | 5.8 | 0.2 | <.0001 |
FTE = full-time equivalent; IT = information technology (computerized system/electronic health record system); n/a = not applicable; OR = odds ratio; PCMH = patient-centered medical home; Ref = Reference group.
↵a Unadjusted.
↵b From multivariate regression analysis.
↵c Unadjusted; on a scale of 0 to 10, where higher score indicates greater number of coordination activities performed with health IT.
↵d Statistically significant.
↵e On a scale of 0 to 17.
↵f For a 1-unit change in score.