
==== Front
BMC Health Serv Res
BMC Health Serv Res
BMC Health Services Research
1472-6963
BioMed Central London

39256705
11440
10.1186/s12913-024-11440-y
Research
Associations among claims-based care fragmentation, self-reported gaps in care coordination, and self-reported adverse events
Kern Lisa M. lmk2003@med.cornell.edu

1
Lau Jennifer D. 1
Rajan Mangala 1
Rhodes J. David 2
Casalino Lawrence P. 1
Colantonio Lisandro D. 2
Pinheiro Laura C. 1
Safford Monika M. 1
1 https://ror.org/02r109517 grid.471410.7 0000 0001 2179 7643 Weill Cornell Medicine, 420 East 70th Street, Box 331, New York, NY 10021 USA
2 https://ror.org/008s83205 grid.265892.2 0000 0001 0634 4187 University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA
10 9 2024
10 9 2024
2024
24 104515 3 2024
14 8 2024
© The Author(s) 2024
2024
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Background

Fragmentation of care (that is, the use of multiple ambulatory providers without a dominant provider) may increase the risk of gaps in communication among providers. However, it is unclear whether people with fragmented care (as measured in claims) perceive more gaps in communication among their providers. It is also unclear whether people who perceive gaps in communication experience them as clinically significant (that is, whether they experience adverse events that they attribute to poor coordination).

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal study using data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, including a survey on perceptions of healthcare (2017–2018) and linked fee-for-service Medicare claims (for the 12 months prior to the survey) (N = 4,296). We estimated correlation coefficients to determine associations between claims-based and self-reported numbers of ambulatory visits and ambulatory providers. We then used logistic regression to determine associations between claims-based fragmentation (measured with the reversed Bice-Boxerman Index [rBBI]) and self-reported gaps in care coordination and, separately, between claims-based fragmentation and self-reported adverse events that the respondent attributed to poor coordination.

Results

The correlation coefficient between claims-based and self-report was 0.37 for the number of visits and 0.38 for the number of providers (p < 0.0001 for each). Individuals with high fragmentation by claims (rBBI ≥ 0.85) had a 23% increased adjusted odds of reporting any gap in care coordination (95% CI 3%, 48%) and, separately, a 61% increased adjusted odds of reporting an adverse event that they attributed to poor coordination (95% CI 11%, 134%).

Conclusions

Medicare beneficiaries with claims-based fragmentation also report gaps in communication among their providers. Moreover, these gaps appear to be clinically significant, with beneficiaries reporting adverse events that they attribute to poor coordination.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-024-11440-y.

Keywords

Ambulatory care
Care fragmentation
Care coordination
Medicare
Adverse events
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000050 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 HL135199 issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Care continuity is the repeated use of a specific ambulatory provider over time, whereas the inverse - care fragmentation - is the use of many ambulatory providers without a dominant provider [1]. Studies of care continuity or care fragmentation have typically used administrative claims as the gold standard method for measurement [2]. Claims contain comprehensive data on ambulatory visit utilization, which can be used to determine the components of the continuity or fragmentation scores, including the number of ambulatory visits, the number of ambulatory providers, and the distribution of visits across those providers. Claims are considered the gold standard because of their completeness. However, the disadvantages of claims are that they are generally not accessible to clinicians, are expensive for researchers to obtain, are not easy to analyze, and are often available only after a substantial time lag has occurred (typically several years).

It would potentially be useful if patients could report their own patterns of ambulatory utilization, as patient self-report would be faster and less expensive to obtain than claims. Perhaps even more importantly, it would be useful if patients could report whether they are aware of gaps in communication among providers, which can occur because of fragmented care; information about gaps in communication is not available in claims and is potentially actionable. However, the accuracy of patient-reported ambulatory utilization and the relationship between self-reported gaps in care coordination and claims-based fragmentation is unclear. Prior studies have attempted to determine the correlation between patient-reported continuity and claims-based continuity, but their results have varied, with studies finding a positive correlation, [3] no correlation, [4] or mixed results (with some components of self-reported measures being associated with claims-based measures but not all) [5–7]. In addition, previous studies have not collected data on whether patients thought the gaps in care coordination resulted in adverse consequences.

Thus, we sought to determine: (1) the association between self-reported and claims-based ambulatory utilization, (2) the association between claims-based fragmentation scores and self-reported gaps in care coordination, and (3) the association between claims-based fragmentation scores and self-reported adverse events that the participants thought could have been prevented with better care coordination.

Methods

Overview

We conducted a longitudinal study, capturing self-reported gaps in care coordination through a survey in 2017–2018 and comparing it to claims-based fragmentation. This study was conducted among REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort study participants who were 65 years or older at the time of the survey. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Weill Cornell Medicine and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Setting

Between 2003 and 2007, the REGARDS study enrolled 30,239 community-dwelling Black and White adults age ≥ 45 years [8]. Black adults and individuals living in the Southeastern US were oversampled, because the study was designed to elucidate reasons for racial and geographic differences in stroke mortality [8]. REGARDS participants, or their proxies if they could not be reached, were contacted by telephone every 6 months to detect study outcomes (e.g., stroke, myocardial infarction). A second in-home visit was conducted approximately 10 years after baseline. REGARDS has linked its data with fee-for-service Medicare claims [9]. All participants provided written informed consent.

Between August 2017 and November 2018, REGARDS included in its routine 6-month follow-up calls a 22-question survey module on experiences with healthcare, which has been published previously [10]. REGARDS participants could opt out of this survey module, even if they chose to participate in the rest of the follow-up call. Of the 22 questions, 8 were related to perceptions of care coordination, 8 related to preventable adverse events, and 6 related to healthcare utilization (including ambulatory visits, ambulatory providers, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations). Questions about perceptions of care coordination typically used a 6-month look-back period, and questions about adverse events and healthcare utilization used 12 months [10].

Data

Data from REGARDS’ primary data collection

We used the following self-reported variables collected at the REGARDS study baseline: biological sex, race (Black/White), educational attainment, history of stroke, region of the U.S., and type of census tract (rural, suburban, or urban), which had been derived by the REGARDS study from the participants’ addresses. We used the following variables from the REGARDS second in-home visit: age, annual household income, hypertension (self-reported, self-reported use of antihypertensive medication, systolic blood pressure ≥ 140 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure ≥ 90 mmHg), hyperlipidemia (self-reported, use of lipid-lowering medication, total cholesterol ≥ 240 mg/dL, low density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 160 mg/dL, or high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≤ 40 mg/dL), diabetes (self-reported, use of oral glucose-lowering medication, use of insulin, fasting glucose ≥ 126 mg/dL, or nonfasting glucose ≥ 200 mg/dL), myocardial infarction (self-reported or evidence on the study electrocardiogram), kidney disease (self-reported kidney failure, or estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min/1.73 m2), and atrial fibrillation (self-reported, or evidence on the study electrocardiogram). We supplemented this information with REGARDS’ adjudicated events for stroke and myocardial infarction [11, 12]. We also used data from the healthcare experiences survey described above.

Data from REGARDS-linked medicare fee-for-service claims

We used Medicare beneficiary files to determine monthly enrollment status. We used deduplicated Medicare fee-for-service claims from the Carrier and Outpatient files to identify ambulatory visits for the 12-month period preceding the healthcare experiences survey for each respondent. Ambulatory visits were defined using a National Committee for Quality Assurance (NQCA) definition that was restricted to Clinical Procedure Terminology (CPT) codes for in-person, evaluation-and-management visits for adults in an office setting [13, 14]. The NCQA definition of ambulatory visits does not include emergency department (ED) visits. We identified unique ambulatory providers by using the identifiers in the claims, mapped to the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System (NPPES) dataset [15]. We also used Outpatient and Inpatient Medicare claims to capture ED visits and hospital admissions.

Derivation of the study cohort

We included individuals who: (1) had completed the healthcare experiences survey, (2) were 65 years or older at the time of the survey, (3) had consented to have their REGARDS data linked to Medicare claims, and (4) had continuous fee-for-service coverage for the 12 months prior to the survey. We further restricted the cohort to those with 4 or more ambulatory visits in the 12 months prior to the survey, because measuring fragmentation with fewer than 4 visits is unreliable [16]. We excluded those with claims-based outlier values (> 99th percentile) for number of ambulatory visits or number of ambulatory providers, as those values are likely erroneous. We also excluded those who did not complete the REGARDS second in-home visit.

Derived variables

Calculating self-reported gaps in care coordination

We used our previously published methods for calculating self-reported gaps in care coordination [17]. Briefly, for each of the eight questions on perceptions of care coordination, we dichotomized the response scales to identify problems with care coordination, which we refer to as “gaps” in care coordination. We combined two similar questions that asked about how often and how quickly a respondent received test results, leaving seven unique items. We calculated the frequency of responses that indicated a gap in care coordination for each of these seven items, as well as the frequency of reporting any gap. We also calculated the frequency of each of and any of four self-reported adverse events that respondents reported could have been prevented with better care coordination (i.e., a test that was repeated because the doctor did not have access to the first test, a drug-drug interaction that occurred in the context of multiple prescribers, an ED visit that could have been prevented with better communication across providers, and a hospital admission that could have been prevented with better communication across providers).

Calculating claims-based fragmentation

For each participant, we determined the number of ambulatory visits, the number of ambulatory providers, and the percentage of visits with the most frequently seen provider over the 12 months prior to the survey. We then calculated a fragmentation score using the previously validated Bice-Boxerman Index (BBI) [2, 16, 18–20]. This index captures both “dispersion” (the spread of ambulatory visits across providers) and “density” (the relative share of visits by each provider) [21]. Patterns of care characterized by high dispersion (many providers) and low density (a relatively low proportion of visits by each provider) receive worse scores (indicating more fragmentation) than patterns with low dispersion and high density. The original BBI ranges from 0 (each visit with a different provider) to 1 (all visits with same provider). To facilitate interpretation, we reversed the index, calculating 1 minus BBI, so that higher scores reflected more fragmentation [14, 22]. Note that this measure treats all physicians the same way, whether they are generalists or specialists.

Statistical analysis

We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study sample, self-reported healthcare utilization, and claims-based healthcare utilization. Using correlation coefficients (for continuous variables), we determined agreement between self-reported and claims-based numbers of ambulatory visits and, separately, between self-reported and claims-based numbers of ambulatory providers. Using kappa statistics (for dichotomous variables), we determined agreement between any (that is, ≥ 1 vs. 0) self-reported and claims-based ED visit and, separately, between any self-reported and claims-based hospitalization.

We then classified participants into three groups based on their fragmentation scores. We defined high fragmentation as a score of ≥ 0.85, based on previous work showing that this cut point is independently associated with an increased risk of hospitalization [20]. Because the distribution of fragmentation scores is skewed, [23] we further defined medium fragmentation as a score from 0.70 to < 0.85 and low fragmentation as a score < 0.70.

We used descriptive statistics to characterize claims-based ambulatory care patterns by fragmentation group. We also used descriptive statistics to show responses to survey questions by fragmentation group, making pairwise comparisons using Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test (if a cell size was < 5).

We conducted unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models, using fragmentation group as the independent variable and any self-reported gap in care coordination as the dependent variable. The adjusted models were built in a stepwise fashion, first adjusting for demographic characteristics and then adding adjustment for clinical characteristics. We repeated these models substituting any self-reported adverse event attributed to poor coordination as the dependent variable. Models were performed using a complete case approach and then re-run using multiple imputation for missing co-variates; the most frequently missing co-variate was annual household income (missing for 15%).

Analyses were conducted using SAS (version 9.4; Cary, NC). P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered significant.

Results

Study sample

We identified 4,296 individuals who met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1). The average age of these participants was 78.1 years old (SD 6.7). Approximately half (54.3%) were female. Nearly one-fourth (24.4%) were Black. Nearly one-third (29.6%) had an annual household income of <$35,000, and more than one-fourth (28.1%) had a high school education or less. More than half (59.3%) lived in the Southeastern region of the U.S. Approximately one-tenth (13.2%) lived in a rural area. More than two-thirds had hypertension (70.2%) or hyperlipidemia (69.1%). The frequency of other chronic conditions is shown in Table 1.

Fig. 1 Derivation of study cohort

Table 1 Characteristics of the study sample at the time of the healthcare experiences survey*

Characteristics	N = 4,296	
Demographic characteristics		
 Age, years, mean (sd)	78.1 (6.7)	
 Sex, female, N (%)	2,334 (54.3)	
 Race, Black, N (%)	1,048 (24.4)	
 Annual household income, <$35,000, N (%)	1,272 (29.6)	
 Educational attainment, high school diploma or less, N (%)	1,209 (28.1)	
 Southeastern region of the U.S., N (%)	2,547 (59.3)	
 Rural area, N (%)	569 (13.2)	
Clinical characteristics		
 Hypertension, N (%)	3,015 (70.2)	
 Hyperlipidemia, N (%)	2,969 (69.1)	
 Diabetes, N (%)	1,244 (29.0)	
 Myocardial infarction, N (%)	714 (16.6)	
 Stroke, N (%)	343 (8.0)	
 Kidney disease, N (%)	1,291 (30.1)	
 Atrial fibrillation, N (%)	537 (12.5)	
*The following variables had missing data: annual household income (N = 661), rural area (N = 452), hypertension (N = 2), hyperlipidemia (N = 54), diabetes (N = 4), kidney disease (N = 5), and atrial fibrillation (N = 354)

Agreement between self-reported and claims-based healthcare utilization

There was a weak correlation between self-reported and claims-based ambulatory visits and ambulatory providers (with correlation coefficients of 0.37 and 0.38 respectively, Table 2). There was moderate agreement between self-reported and claims-based ED visits and hospital admissions), with kappa statistics of 0.45 and 0.52, respectively. For the first three of these measures, the self-reported value was lower than the claims-based values. Participants reported an average of 6.0 visits over the past year, whereas by claims the same individuals had an average of 13.1 visits. Similarly, the participants reported having an average of 3.1 ambulatory providers, whereas claims found an average of 6.2 providers. Approximately one-fifth of respondents (19.5%) reported having at least one ED visit, whereas claims found ED visits for 29.6% of respondents. Similar proportions were found for hospital admissions (16.5% by self-report vs. 15.8% for claims).

Table 2 Agreement between self-reported utilization and claims-based utilization*

	Self-report	Claims	Agreement	
Number of ambulatory visits, mean (sd)	6.0 (7.1)	13.1 (8.0)	r = 0.37, p < 0.0001	
Number of ambulatory providers, mean (sd)	3.1 (2.5)	6.2 (3.1)	r = 0.38, p < 0.0001	
At least one emergency department visit, N (%)	836 (19.5)	1270 (29.6)	Kappa = 0.45, p < 0.0001	
At least one hospital admission, N (%)	708 (16.5)	677 (15.8)	Kappa = 0.52, p < 0.0001	
*This table compares self-reported utilization (as captured by the survey conducted in 2017–2018, with a 12-month look-back period) to utilization (as measured in claims for the 12 months prior to the survey)

Differences across groups by claims-based fragmentation score

Overall, those with 4 or more ambulatory visits had a median of 11 visits to 6 providers, with a median of 36% of visits with the most frequently seen provider, and a median fragmentation score of 0.84 (Table 3). The distributions of these variables are shown in the Appendix. Of the 4,296 participants in the study, 2,052 (47.8%) had high fragmentation, 1,543 (35.9%) had medium fragmentation, and 701 (16.3%) had low fragmentation (Table 3). Participants in the high fragmentation group had a median of 13 ambulatory visits to 7 unique providers (by claims), with the most frequently seen provider accounting for 27% of visits, yielding a median fragmentation score of 0.90. Participants in the medium fragmentation group had a median of 11 visits to 5 providers, with the most frequently seen provider accounting for 43% of visits, yielding a median fragmentation score of 0.80. By contrast, those with low fragmentation had a median of 8 visits to 3 providers, with the most frequently seen provider accounting for 64% of visits, with a median fragmentation score of 0.60.

Table 3 Claims-based patterns of ambulatory utilization, stratified into high, medium, and low fragmentation groups*

	Overall	Low fragmentation
(N = 701)	Medium fragmentation
(N = 1,543)	High fragmentation
(N = 2,052)	
Number of ambulatory visits, median (range)	11 (4–63)	8 (4–63)	11 (4–61)	13 (4–61)	
Number of ambulatory providers, median (range)	6 (1–20)	3 (1–14)	5 (3–18)	7 (4–20)	
Proportion of visits with the most frequently seen provider, median (range)	0.36 (0.09–1.00)	0.64 (0.42–1.00)	0.43 (0.25–0.60)	0.27 (0.09–0.43)	
Fragmentation score, median (range)	0.84 (0.00–1.00)	0.60 (0.00–0.69)	0.80 (0.70–0.84)	0.90 (0.85–1.00)	
*Low fragmentation was defined as a reversed Bice-Boxerman (rBBI) score < 0.70. Medium fragmentation was defined as an rBBI from 0.70 to less than 0.85. High fragmentation was defined as an rBBI score greater than or equal to 0.85. Participants were required to have at least 4 ambulatory visits to be included

Association between self-reported gaps in care coordination and claims-based fragmentation

There were statistically significant differences across claims-based fragmentation groups for 4 of the 7 unique questions on perceptions of care coordination (Table 4). For example, 11.8% of high fragmentation participants reported that they only somewhat received or did not receive help they needed from their doctor’s office to manage care among different providers and services, compared to 7.9% of low fragmentation participants (p < 0.01). Similarly, 10.8% of high fragmentation participants reported that they do not think their doctors communicate with each other about their healthcare, compared to 6.6% of low fragmentation participants (p = 0.001). The proportions of participants rating the coordination of care among all of the health professionals that they see as fair or poor were 8% of high fragmentation participants and 3.6% for low fragmentation participants (p < 0.001). The medium fragmentation group had proportions between the high and low fragmentation groups. Overall, in these unadjusted comparisons, those with high fragmentation were more likely than those with low fragmentation to report any of the 7 gaps in care coordination (37.8% vs. 33.7%, p = 0.049).

Table 4 Self-reported gaps in care coordination and self-reported adverse events, stratified by claims-based fragmentation (N = 4,296)

	N (%) respondents reporting the gap in care coordination	p-value (Medium vs. Low)*	p-value (High vs. Low)*	
Low fragmentation
(N = 701)	Medium fragmentation
(N = 1543)	High fragmentation (N = 2052)	
Self-reported gaps in care coordination†						
In the past 6 months, the personal doctor only sometimes or never talked about all of the prescription medicines the respondent was taking.	112 (16.0)	243 (15.7)	322 (15.7)	0.90	0.90	
In the past 6 months, the respondent only somewhat received or did not receive the help he or she needed from the personal doctor’s office to manage his or her care among different providers and services.	54 (7.9)	155 (10.0)	243 (11.8)	0.08	< 0.01	
The respondent thinks that, in general, the doctors he or she sees do not communicate with each other about his or her care.	46 (6.6)	138 (8.9)	221 (10.8)	0.06	0.001	
In the past 6 months, the respondents’ personal doctor’s office followed up only sometimes or never to provide the results of a blood test, x-ray, or other test that the personal doctor had ordered.	73 (10.4)	135 (8.7)	216 (10.5)	0.20	> 0.99	
The respondent rates the coordination of care among all of the health professionals that he or she sees, in general, as fair or poor.	25 (3.6)	92 (6.0)	165 (8.0)	0.02	< 0.001	
In the past 6 months, the personal doctor seemed sometimes or never informed and up-to-date about care the respondent received from specialists.	48 (6.8)	109 (7.1)	161 (7.8)	0.90	0.40	
In the past 6 months, the personal doctor only sometimes or never had medical records or other information about the respondent’s care when he or she had a scheduled appointment.	21 (3.0)	49 (3.2)	70 (3.4)	0.80	0.60	
Any of the above	236 (33.7)	538 (34.9)	776 (37.8)	0.60	0.049	
Self-reported adverse event over the past 12 months‡						
Repeated blood test, x-ray, or other test that the participant had had in the past 2 weeks because his or her doctor did not have the results of the first test (Outcome #1)	14 (2.0)	37 (2.4)	50 (2.4)	0.60	0.50	
Had a problem with his or her medications, because different doctors prescribed medications that did not go well together (Outcome #2)	22 (3.1)	79 (5.1)	93 (4.5)	0.04	0.11	
Had one or more emergency department (ED) visits	83 (11.8)	307 (19.9)	446 (21.7)	< 0.001	< 0.001	
 Believes ED visit could have been prevented§	24 (28.9)	77 (25.1)	114 (25.6)	0.50	0.50	
 Believes ED visit could have been prevented with better communication across doctors and other health professionals (Outcome #3)§	4 (16.7)	14 (18.2)	24 (21.1)	0.90	0.60	
Had one or more hospital admission	72 (10.3)	238 (15.4)	398 (19.4)	0.001	< 0.001	
 Believes admission could have been prevented§	13 (18.1)	37 (15.5)	42 (10.6)	0.60	0.07	
 Believes admission could have been prevented with better communication across doctors and other health professionals (Outcome #4)§	0 (0.0)	7 (18.9)	9 (21.4)	0.20	0.10	
Any of outcomes #1, 2, 3, or 4	37 (5.3)	119 (7.7)	162 (7.9)	0.04	0.02	
* P-values were calculated using Pearson’s chi-squared test or Fisher’s exact test (if a cell size was less than 5)

† Survey questions were framed neutrally. The wording in the first column indicates how the question was dichotomized to indicate a “gap” in care coordination. The seven gaps are shown in decreasing order of frequency for the high fragmentation group

‡ Self-reported adverse events had a 12-month lookback period

§ Denominators for these percentages are found in the row above

Table 5 Unadjusted and adjusted associations between self-reported and claims-based measures

Dependent variable	Model
(with complete case N)	Logistic regression (odds ratio [OR], 95% confidence interval)	
Independent variable: extent of fragmentation by claims	Complete case	With multiple imputation	
Any self-reported gap in care coordination	Unadjusted

(N = 4,296)

	Low

Medium

High

	[ref]

1.07 (0.89–1.29)

1.20 (1.01–1.44)

	[ref]

1.07 (0.89–1.29)

1.20 (1.00–1.44)

	
Model 1

(N = 3,256)

	Low

Medium

High

	[ref]

1.05 (0.87–1.29)

1.21 (1.00–1.47)

	[ref]

1.07 (0.89–1.29)

1.23 (1.02–1.47)

	
Model 2

(N = 2,979)

	Low

Medium

High

	[ref]

1.04 (0.84–1.28)

1.24 (1.01–1.51)

	[ref]

1.07 (0.89, 1.29)

1.24 (1.03, 1.48)

	
Any self-reported adverse event attributed to poor coordination	Unadjusted

(N = 4,296)

	Low

Medium

High

	[ref]

1.50 (1.04–2.22)

1.54 (1.08–2.25)

	[ref]

1.50 (1.03–2.19)

1.54 (1.06–2.22)

	
Model 1 (N = 3,256)	Low

Medium

High

	[ref]

1.34 (0.91–2.02)

1.59 (1.09–2.37)

	[ref]

1.53 (1.04–2.24)

1.64 (1.13–2.38)

	
Model 2 (N = 2,979)	Low

Medium

High

	[ref]

1.35 (0.90–2.08)

1.53 (1.03–2.32)

	[ref]

1.52 (1.04–2.23)

1.61 (1.11–2.34)

	
Model 1 adjusts for the demographic characteristics in Table 1.

Model 2 adjusts for the demographic and clinical characteristics in Table 1.

Sample sizes refer to complete case models

This association persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, regardless of whether we used a complete case approach or multiple imputation for missing co-variates (Table 5). In the fully adjusted model that used multiple imputation, having high fragmentation was associated with a 24% increase in the odds of reporting any gap in care coordination, compared to low fragmentation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03, 1.48).

Association between claims-based fragmentation and self-reported adverse events

There were no statistically significant differences across fragmentation groups in the frequency with which respondents reported repeat tests (Table 4). Those with medium fragmentation reported more drug-drug interactions than the low fragmentation group, but the difference between high and low fragmentation was not statistically significant.

The high fragmentation group was more likely to have an ED visit than the low fragmentation group (21.7% vs. 11.8%, p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the proportions of respondents who thought that their ED visit could have been prevented or could have been prevented with better communication among providers.

The high fragmentation group was also more likely to have a hospital admission than the low fragmentation group (19.4% vs. 10.3%, p < 0.001), but there was no statistically significant difference in the proportions of respondents who thought that their hospital admission could have been prevented or could have been prevented with better communication.

When any of the four adverse events were considered (that is, repeat test, drug-drug interaction, ED visit that could have been prevented with better communication, and hospital admission that could have been prevented with better communication), 7.9% of those with high fragmentation and 5.3% of those with low fragmentation reported any adverse event (p = 0.02). Adjusting for co-variates and using multiple imputation for missing co-variates, high fragmentation was significantly associated with a 61% increase in the odds of any self-reported adverse event, compared to low fragmentation (Table 5, AOR 1.61, 95% CI 1.11, 2.34).

Discussion

In this national study of 4,296 Medicare beneficiaries, we found a positive correlation between self-reported and claims-based ambulatory utilization, with correlation coefficients of 0.37 for the number of visits and 0.38 for the number of providers (p < 0.0001 for each). Participants substantially underestimated their ambulatory utilization, compared to claims; they reported an average of 6.0 visits to 3.1 providers, whereas claims identified an average of 13.1 visits to 6.2 providers (p < 0.0001 for each). Nearly half of participants (47.8%) had highly fragmented care by claims. More than a third of participants reported a gap in care coordination, and between 5% and 8% of participants reported adverse events that they attributed to poor care coordination. Those with high fragmentation by claims had a 24% increased adjusted odds of experiencing a gap in care coordination (95% CI 3%, 48%) and, separately, a 61% increased adjusted odds of a self-reported adverse event that they attributed to poor coordination (95% CI 11%, 134%).

In the context of the literature, our findings align with the previous study that found a positive correlation between self-reported and claims-based measures of ambulatory utilization, and the magnitude of association in our study was similar to theirs (r = 0.30) [3]. Our study is thus distinct from previous work that found mixed or null results [4–7]. We found slightly lower agreement between self-report vs. claims-based ED visits and hospitalizations (kappa of 0.45 for ED visits and 0.52 for hospitalizations), compared to the literature’s kappa of 0.65 for ED visits and 0.64 for hospitalizations, although the difference could be explained by our use of a 12-month look-back period compared to others’ use of a 6-month look-back [24]. Our study adds to the literature with the novel finding of a positive association between claims-based fragmentation and self-reported adverse events that respondents attribute to poor coordination of care.

The directions of the associations between self-reported and claims-based ambulatory utilization, claims-based fragmentation and self-reported gaps in care coordination, and claims-based fragmentation and self-reported adverse events were all consistent. Together, these findings suggest that patients are aware of when their care is fragmented, even if they underestimate the full extent of fragmentation. The findings further suggest that patient-reported gaps in care coordination and patient-reported adverse events could be considered important patient-centered outcomes.

Previous studies have measured patient-reported gaps in care coordination, but they have tended to use them as a measure of quality and satisfaction at the population level, [25, 26] not as a measure to be collected and addressed at the individual level in real time. If patients are aware of gaps in care coordination and can see preventable harm unfolding, it would be important for the medical community to elicit those observations and act to address them.

Although this study does not validate patient perceptions of harm against objective documentation of adverse events, another study found that patient reports are correct more often than not; in that study, 64% of safety concerns reported by patients were validated upon clinician review and that 57% of those confirmed problems resulted in a change in the patients’ record or care plan [27]. Patients’ perceptions of care coordination are not routinely elicited, and more research is needed to determine whether addressing patients’ concerns can favorably affect their care.

There are several limitations of this study. We do not have objective data on appropriateness of care or on communication among providers. In addition, this study took place within the context of a cohort study, and those who participate in cohort studies may be different from those who do not. However, empirical data suggest that REGARDS participants with linked fee-for-service Medicare claims are representative of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries broadly [9]. Strengths of this study include a national sample, large sample size, diverse sample, and use of previously tested measures for claims-based fragmentation and self-reported gaps in care coordination.

In conclusion, our study found positive associations among claims-based fragmentation, self-reported gaps in care coordination, and self-reported adverse events. While claims-based fragmentation may remain the gold standard for capturing ambulatory utilization, this study suggests that self-reported measures could play an important complementary role. Future studies could use self-reported gaps in coordination as a starting point for identifying opportunities for intervention at the individual level. The fact that people are reporting adverse events that they attribute to a failure of care coordination warrants more attention.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Author contributions

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work: LMK, JDR, LPC, MMS. The acquisition of data: LMK, JDR, MMS. The analysis of data: JDL, MR. The interpretation of data: LMK, JDL, MR, JDR, LPC, LDC, LCP, MMS. Drafting the work: LMK. Reviewing it critically for important intellectual content: LMK, JDL, MR, JDR, LPC, LDC, LCP, MMS. Approval of the final manuscript: LMK, JDL, MR, JDR, LPC, LDC, LCP, MMS.

Funding

The REGARDS study is co-funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and the National Institute on Aging, of the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services (U01 NS041588). This work was supported by ancillary studies to REGARDS, with funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01 HL135199 and R01HL165452). The funding agencies played no role in the design or conduct of the study, and no role in data management, data analysis, interpretation of data, or preparation of the manuscript. The REGARDS Executive Committee reviewed and approved this manuscript prior to submission, ensuring adherence to standards for describing the REGARDS study.

Data availability

The data used for this study include data from the Reasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study, which is based at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, linked to claims data owned by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The REGARDS-Medicare linked dataset is not publicly available due to constraints of the data use agreement. Researchers interested in using REGARDS data can send an email to REGARDSAdmin@uab.edu. See also the following website for more information: https://www.uab.edu/soph/regardsstudy/researchers.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants provided written informed consent. The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Weill Cornell Medicine and the University of Alabama at Birmingham.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

LMK is a consultant to Mathematica, Inc.LDC and MMS receive support from Amgen, Inc.MMS is the founder of MedExplain, a patient education company.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Kern LM, Bynum JPW, Pincus HA. Care fragmentation, care continuity, and care coordination: how they differ and why it matters. JAMA Intern Med 2024 [epub ahead of print].
2. Pollack CE Hussey PS Rudin RS Fox DS Lai J Schneider EC Measuring care continuity: a comparison of claims-based methods Med Care 2016 54 5 e30 4 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000018 24309664
Pollack CE, Hussey PS, Rudin RS, Fox DS, Lai J, Schneider EC. Measuring care continuity: a comparison of claims-based methods. Med Care. 2016;54(5):e30–4.24309664 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000018
3. Rodriguez HP Marshall RE Rogers WH Safran DG Primary care physician visit continuity: a comparison of patient-reported and administratively derived measures J Gen Intern Med 2008 23 9 1499 502 10.1007/s11606-008-0692-z 18563492
Rodriguez HP, Marshall RE, Rogers WH, Safran DG. Primary care physician visit continuity: a comparison of patient-reported and administratively derived measures. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(9):1499–502.18563492 10.1007/s11606-008-0692-z
4. Bentler SE Morgan RO Virnig BA Wolinsky FD Do claims-based continuity of care measures reflect the patient perspective? Med Care Res Rev 2014 71 2 156 73 10.1177/1077558713505909 24163307
Bentler SE, Morgan RO, Virnig BA, Wolinsky FD. Do claims-based continuity of care measures reflect the patient perspective? Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(2):156–73.24163307 10.1177/1077558713505909
5. Nyweide DJ Concordance between continuity of care reported by patients and measured from administrative data Med Care Res Rev 2014 71 2 138 55 10.1177/1077558713505685 24177138
Nyweide DJ. Concordance between continuity of care reported by patients and measured from administrative data. Med Care Res Rev. 2014;71(2):138–55.24177138 10.1177/1077558713505685
6. Liss DT Chubak J Anderson ML Saunders KW Tuzzio L Reid RJ Patient-reported care coordination: associations with primary care continuity and specialty care use Ann Fam Med 2011 9 4 323 9 10.1370/afm.1278 21747103
Liss DT, Chubak J, Anderson ML, Saunders KW, Tuzzio L, Reid RJ. Patient-reported care coordination: associations with primary care continuity and specialty care use. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(4):323–9.21747103 10.1370/afm.1278
7. DuGoff EH Continuity of care in older adults with multiple chronic conditions: how well do administrative measures correspond with patient experiences? J Healthc Qual 2018 40 3 120 8 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000051 28151775
DuGoff EH. Continuity of care in older adults with multiple chronic conditions: how well do administrative measures correspond with patient experiences? J Healthc Qual. 2018;40(3):120–8.28151775 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000051
8. Howard VJ Cushman M Pulley L The reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study: objectives and design Neuroepidemiology 2005 25 3 135 43 10.1159/000086678 15990444
Howard VJ, Cushman M, Pulley L, et al. The reasons for geographic and racial differences in stroke study: objectives and design. Neuroepidemiology. 2005;25(3):135–43.15990444 10.1159/000086678
9. Xie F Colantonio LD Curtis JR Linkage of a populaton-based cohort with primary data collection to Medicare claims: the REasons for Geographic and racial differences in stroke (REGARDS) study Am J Epidemiol 2016 184 7 532 44 10.1093/aje/kww077 27651383
Xie F, Colantonio LD, Curtis JR, et al. Linkage of a populaton-based cohort with primary data collection to Medicare claims: the REasons for Geographic and racial differences in stroke (REGARDS) study. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(7):532–44.27651383 10.1093/aje/kww077
10. Kern LM Reshetnyak E Colantonio LD Association between patients’ self-reported gaps in care coordination and preventable adverse outcomes: a cross-sectional survey J Gen Intern Med 2020 35 12 3517 24 10.1007/s11606-020-06047-y 32720240
Kern LM, Reshetnyak E, Colantonio LD, et al. Association between patients’ self-reported gaps in care coordination and preventable adverse outcomes: a cross-sectional survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(12):3517–24.32720240 10.1007/s11606-020-06047-y
11. Howard VJ Kleindorfer DO Judd SE Disparities in stroke incidence contributing to disparities in stroke mortality Ann Neurol 2011 69 4 619 27 10.1002/ana.22385 21416498
Howard VJ, Kleindorfer DO, Judd SE, et al. Disparities in stroke incidence contributing to disparities in stroke mortality. Ann Neurol. 2011;69(4):619–27.21416498 10.1002/ana.22385
12. Safford MM Brown TM Muntner PM Association of race and sex with risk of incident acute coronary heart disease events JAMA 2012 308 17 1768 74 10.1001/jama.2012.14306 23117777
Safford MM, Brown TM, Muntner PM, et al. Association of race and sex with risk of incident acute coronary heart disease events. JAMA. 2012;308(17):1768–74.23117777 10.1001/jama.2012.14306
13. National Committee for Quality Assurance. HEDIS Volume 2: Technical Specifications. (Accessed August 7. 2024 at https://www.ncqa.org/hedis/measures/).
14. Kern LM Seirup JK Casalino LP Safford MM Healthcare fragmentation and the frequency of radiology and other diagnostic tests: a cross-sectional study J Gen Intern Med 2017 32 2 175 81 10.1007/s11606-016-3883-z 27796694
Kern LM, Seirup JK, Casalino LP, Safford MM. Healthcare fragmentation and the frequency of radiology and other diagnostic tests: a cross-sectional study. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(2):175–81.27796694 10.1007/s11606-016-3883-z
15. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Plan & Provider Enumeration System (NPPES). (Accessed August 7, 2024, at https://nppes.cms.hhs.gov/#/).
16. Nyweide DJ Anthony DL Bynum JP Continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization in older adults JAMA Intern Med 2013 173 20 1879 85 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10059 24043127
Nyweide DJ, Anthony DL, Bynum JP, et al. Continuity of care and the risk of preventable hospitalization in older adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(20):1879–85.24043127 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10059
17. Kern LM Safford MM Slavin MJ Patients’ and providers’ views on the causes and consequences of healthcare fragmentation J Gen Intern Med 2019 34 6 899 907 10.1007/s11606-019-04859-1 30783883
Kern LM, Safford MM, Slavin MJ, et al. Patients’ and providers’ views on the causes and consequences of healthcare fragmentation. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(6):899–907.30783883 10.1007/s11606-019-04859-1
18. Bice TW Boxerman SB A quantitative measure of continuity of care Med Care 1977 15 4 347 9 10.1097/00005650-197704000-00010 859364
Bice TW, Boxerman SB. A quantitative measure of continuity of care. Med Care. 1977;15(4):347–9.859364 10.1097/00005650-197704000-00010
19. Hussey PS Schneider EC Rudin RS Fox DS Lai J Pollack CE Continuity and the costs of care for chronic disease JAMA Intern Med 2014 174 5 742 8 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.245 24638880
Hussey PS, Schneider EC, Rudin RS, Fox DS, Lai J, Pollack CE. Continuity and the costs of care for chronic disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(5):742–8.24638880 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.245
20. Kern LM Ringel JB Rajan M Ambulatory care fragmentation and subsequent hospitalization: evidence from the REGARDS Study Med Care 2021 59 4 334 40 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001470 33273294
Kern LM, Ringel JB, Rajan M, et al. Ambulatory care fragmentation and subsequent hospitalization: evidence from the REGARDS Study. Med Care. 2021;59(4):334–40.33273294 10.1097/MLR.0000000000001470
21. Jee SH Cabana MD Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature Med Care Res Rev 2006 63 2 158 88 10.1177/1077558705285294 16595410
Jee SH, Cabana MD. Indices for continuity of care: a systematic review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63(2):158–88.16595410 10.1177/1077558705285294
22. Liu CW Einstadter D Cebul RD Care fragmentation and emergency department use among complex patients with diabetes Am J Manag Care 2010 16 6 413 20 20560685
Liu CW, Einstadter D, Cebul RD. Care fragmentation and emergency department use among complex patients with diabetes. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(6):413–20.20560685
23. Kern LM Seirup J Rajan M Jawahar R Stuard SS Fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent healthcare utilization among Medicare beneficiaries Am J Manag Care 2018 24 9 e278 84 30222925
Kern LM, Seirup J, Rajan M, Jawahar R, Stuard SS. Fragmented ambulatory care and subsequent healthcare utilization among Medicare beneficiaries. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(9):e278–84.30222925
24. Marks AS Lee DW Slezak J Berger J Patel H Johnson KE Agreement between insurance claim and self-reported hospital and emergency room utilization data among persons with diabetes Dis Manag 2003 6 4 199 205 10.1089/109350703322682513 14736344
Marks AS, Lee DW, Slezak J, Berger J, Patel H, Johnson KE. Agreement between insurance claim and self-reported hospital and emergency room utilization data among persons with diabetes. Dis Manag. 2003;6(4):199–205.14736344 10.1089/109350703322682513
25. Quigley DD Mendel PJ Predmore ZS Chen AY Hays RD Use of CAHPS((R)) patient experience survey data as part of a patient-centered medical home quality improvement initiative J Healthc Leadersh 2015 7 41 54 29355183
Quigley DD, Mendel PJ, Predmore ZS, Chen AY, Hays RD. Use of CAHPS((R)) patient experience survey data as part of a patient-centered medical home quality improvement initiative. J Healthc Leadersh. 2015;7:41–54.29355183
26. Schoen C Osborn R Squires D Doty M Pierson R Applebaum S New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated Health Aff (Millwood) 2011 30 12 2437 48 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0923 22072063
Schoen C, Osborn R, Squires D, Doty M, Pierson R, Applebaum S. New 2011 survey of patients with complex care needs in eleven countries finds that care is often poorly coordinated. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2437–48.22072063 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0923
27. Bell SK Gerard M Fossa A A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships BMJ Qual Saf 2017 26 4 312 22 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006020 27965416
Bell SK, Gerard M, Fossa A, et al. A patient feedback reporting tool for OpenNotes: implications for patient-clinician safety and quality partnerships. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(4):312–22.27965416 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-006020
