AJPB

Personal Medical Liaison to Help Transition Between Hospital and Home

Published Online: February 18, 2014
Pranish Kantesaria, PharmD
It has been said that the creative destruction of the current hospital and health system model has begun.1 Now, with new incentives for preventive care and novel concepts like the medical home model, there is immense pressure for health systems to change the way they will function in the future.

Our current hospital care model is based on the healthcare service demands of the past, when infectious diseases and childbirth were among the major causes of mortality and the general population did not live long enough for chronic medical conditions to  progress to the point where patients needed the complex care provided by a hospital. This care model, combined with the evolution of payment for services rendered, created the current acute care fee-for-service method of reimbursement. With the general  population living longer and proliferation of illnesses with partial environmental triggers (eg, cancer), the current model of care is no  longer the most efficient or the most effective one for the conveyance of medical care.

Healthcare as an industry has been quite intransigent in moving to a newer model for care. This is in part due to lack of incentives (or penalties) encouraging change, along with the demands of society and the “cabal” of medical practitioners.2 Currently, we are approaching a tipping point of penalties and incentives, primarily due to the Affordable Care Act, that will move us to create a more modern model for the delivery of healthcare.

The changes will benefit society as well as the healthcare industry in the long run. In the short run, however, this chaotic period of change will leave patients in a vulnerable position. The type of care they need and the type of care they are likely to receive (no  matter the quality) are not likely to be the same until the system sorts itself out. During this period of flux, there is a need and an opportunity for services that will bridge the gap between past and future paradigms for healthcare delivery.

Until a new model emerges, one of the most difficult barriers to good patient outcomes is the transition between different levels and venues of care.3,4 There is new impetus to create a reliable and effective means to shepherd patients through the transition between inpatient hospitalization and the immediate post hospitalization return to their normal living environment. This includes moving to a more complex self-care regimen in the ambulatory setting, secondary to the development or progression of chronic medical conditions.

Issues concerning poor transitions of care are not new. A great deal of literature exists about poor outcomes and readmissions related to medication compliance, wound care, and follow-up with a patient’s primary care provider.5,6

Some attempts have been made by health systems to address transitional issues with methods such as post discharge phone calls5 and expanded case management and discharge planning. The problem inherent in this approach is that there is no long-term incentive for a health system that is paid for acute care to provide these services on an ongoing basis. Services such as case management have a specific goal: to assist patients with their return home by helping with logistics, setting up services such as home care, or assisting with obtaining durable medical equipment. Helping with logistics is not the same as helping with disease management. The primary goal of aid with logistics is to prevent patient readmission within 30 days of discharge to avoid the penalties associated with value-based purchasing.

These attempts may help to address issues such as poor discharge education and the proliferation of socalled “frequent flyers” in health systems, but there is no mechanism that would make it financially beneficial to extend acute care services to a chronic care  model7 providing long-term support for such patients. A review of the literature shows that while most health systems want to avoid immediate readmissions, many are struggling to be effective in this area.8 As hospitals figure out how to approach this problem, who is paying for experimentation with and development of systems that are in accord with value-based payment models? In our current model, it is managed care payers.

I believe the time has come for managed care payers to take an even more active role in the care of their hospitalized members. Let me pause to state that I do not advocate payers building or running their own hospitals. The health maintenance organizations of the 1980s and 1990s amply demonstrated the diffi culties inherent in such a model. However, I do advocate that payers create the means for having a presence in hospitals where their members are receiving care.

I suggest the creation of a personal medical liaison (PML). This would be an individual with medical training (eg, RN, PharmD) and experience in the hospital setting. This hospital experience is crucial because without it the PML would not be able to gain credibility and trust with hospital personnel and would not be able to predict and head off the common pitfalls that make the transition from acute care to recuperation at home such a vulnerable period for patients.

The PML would meet with the patient and his or her representative before discharge and review the course of the hospital stay, assist with the patient being signed out from the charge nurse, and review the hospital records. The PML would receive copies of all discharge documentation and would help case management personnel with issues related to discharge planning (eg, home care, follow-up appointments with primary care physicians). The PML then would circle back to the patient at home or the equivalent (ie, rehabilitation or skilled nursing facility) and make sure there are no gaps in discharge education and that any new prescriptions have been filled. This individual would also be available to the patient for any questions or concerns he or she might have.

The PML could develop an ongoing relationship with the patient, wherein he or she would be available for a period of time or on a continuing basis, depending on the complexity of the disease states, the level of compliance of the patient, and the resources needed. For example, for the patient with congestive heart failure, hypertension, or type 2 diabetes mellitus, the PML would check in monthly at the patient’s home to make sure there are no barriers to compliance and that any new issues are identified and brought to the appropriate doctor’s attention before the problems escalate to the point where another inpatient admission is needed. For patients who are compliant and whose disease states are well controlled, the PML would only need to check in quarterly.

PDF is available on the last page.

Issue: January/February 2014
More on AJMC.COM