Patient and Provider Perceptions of a Patient Navigation Program to Improve Postpartum Care Among Publicly Insured Women

Fengling Hu; Angelina Strohbach; Noelle G. Martinez; Melissa A. Simon; Lynn M. Yee

doi:10.1055/s-0039-1696671

American Journal of Perinatology, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Am J Perinatol 2021; 38(03): 248-257
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1696671

Original Article

Patient and Provider Perceptions of a Patient Navigation Program to Improve Postpartum Care Among Publicly Insured Women

Fengling Hu

¹Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

,

Angelina Strohbach

¹Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

,

Noelle G. Martinez

¹Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

,

Melissa A. Simon

²Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Preventive Medicine, and Medical Social Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

,

Lynn M. Yee

¹Division of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Objective This study was aimed to assess patient and provider perceptions of a postpartum patient navigation program.

Study Design This was a mixed-method assessment of a postpartum patient navigation program. Navigating New Motherhood (NNM) participants completed a follow-up survey including the Patient Satisfaction with Interpersonal Relationship with Navigator (PSN-I) scale and an open-ended question. PSN-I scores were analyzed descriptively. Eighteen provider stakeholders underwent in-depth interviews to gauge program satisfaction, perceived outcomes, and ideas for improvement. Qualitative data were analyzed by the constant comparative method.

Results In this population of low-income, minority women, participants (n = 166) were highly satisfied with NNM. The median PSN-I score was 45 out of 45 (interquartile range [IQR]: 43–45), where a higher score corresponds to higher satisfaction. Patient feedback was also highly positive, though a small number desired more navigator support. Provider stakeholders offered consistently positive program feedback, expressing satisfaction with NNM execution and outcomes. Provider stakeholders noted that navigators avoided inhibiting clinic workflow and eased clinic administrative burden. They perceived NNM improved multiple clinical and satisfaction outcomes. All provider stakeholders believed that NNM should be sustained long-term; suggestions for improvement were offered.

Conclusion A postpartum patient navigation program can perceivably improve patient satisfaction, clinical care, and clinic workflow without burden to clinic providers.

Keywords

navigator - patient navigation - postpartum - program evaluation - stakeholder feedback

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' Committee on Obstetric Practice; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses. Committee opinion no. 666: optimizing postpartum care. Obstet Gynecol 2016; 127 (06) e187-e192
2 Harney C, Dude A, Haider S. Factors associated with short interpregnancy interval in women who plan postpartum LARC: a retrospective study. Contraception 2017; 95 (03) 245-250
3 Lu MC, Prentice J. The postpartum visit: risk factors for nonuse and association with breast-feeding. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2002; 187 (05) 1329-1336
4 Bryant AS, Haas JS, McElrath TF, McCormick MC. Predictors of compliance with the postpartum visit among women living in healthy start project areas. Matern Child Health J 2006; 10 (06) 511-516
5 DiBari JN, Yu SM, Chao SM, Lu MC. Use of postpartum care: predictors and barriers. J Pregnancy 2014; 2014: 530769
6 Wilcox A, Levi EE, Garrett JM. Predictors of non-attendance to the postpartum follow-up visit. Matern Child Health J 2016; 20 (Suppl. 01) 22-27
7 Rankin KM, Haider S, Caskey R, Chakraborty A, Roesch P, Handler A. Healthcare utilization in the postpartum period among Illinois women with Medicaid paid claims for delivery, 2009-2010. Matern Child Health J 2016; 20 (Suppl. 01) 144-153
8 Bromley E, Nunes A, Phipps MG. Disparities in pregnancy healthcare utilization between Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women in Rhode Island. Matern Child Health J 2012; 16 (08) 1576-1582
9 Wells KJ, Battaglia TA, Dudley DJ. et al; Patient Navigation Research Program. Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science?. Cancer 2008; 113 (08) 1999-2010
10 Battaglia TA, Roloff K, Posner MA, Freund KM. Improving follow-up to abnormal breast cancer screening in an urban population. A patient navigation intervention. Cancer 2007; 109 (2, Suppl): 359-367
11 Simon MA, Tom LS, Nonzee NJ. et al. Evaluating a bilingual patient navigation program for uninsured women with abnormal screening tests for breast and cervical cancer: implications for future navigator research. Am J Public Health 2015; 105 (05) e87-e94
12 Markossian TW, Darnell JS, Calhoun EA. Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21 (10) 1691-1700
13 Paskett ED, Dudley D, Young GS. et al; PNRP Investigators. Impact of patient navigation interventions on timely diagnostic follow up for abnormal cervical screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2016; 25 (01) 15-21
14 Hoffman HJ, LaVerda NL, Young HA. et al. Patient navigation significantly reduces delays in breast cancer diagnosis in the District of Columbia. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012; 21 (10) 1655-1663
15 McKenney KM, Martinez NG, Yee LM. Patient navigation across the spectrum of women's health care in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2018; 218 (03) 280-286
16 Bush ML, Kaufman MR, Shackleford T. Adherence in the cancer care setting: a systematic review of patient navigation to traverse barriers. J Cancer Educ 2018; 33 (06) 1222-1229
17 Reuland DS, Brenner AT, Hoffman R. et al. Effect of combined patient decision aid and patient navigation vs usual care for colorectal cancer screening in a vulnerable patient population: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177 (07) 967-974
18 Wallington S, Oppong B, Dash C. et al. A community-based outreach navigator approach to establishing partnerships for a safety net mammography screening center. J Cancer Educ 2018; 33 (04) 782-787
19 Castaldi M, Safadjou S, Elrafei T, McNelis J. A multidisciplinary patient navigation program improves compliance with adjuvant breast cancer therapy in a public hospital. Am J Med Qual 2017; 32 (04) 406-413
20 Baik SH, Gallo LC, Wells KJ. Patient navigation in breast cancer treatment and survivorship: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (30) 3686-3696
21 Battaglia TA, Darnell JS, Ko N. et al. The impact of patient navigation on the delivery of diagnostic breast cancer care in the National Patient Navigation Research Program: a prospective meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2016; 158 (03) 523-534
22 de la Riva EE, Hajjar N, Tom LS, Phillips S, Dong X, Simon MA. Providers' views on a community-wide patient navigation program: implications for dissemination and future implementation. Health Promot Pract 2016; 17 (03) 382-390
23 Gabitova G, Burke NJ. Improving healthcare empowerment through breast cancer patient navigation: a mixed methods evaluation in a safety-net setting. BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 407
24 Yee LM, Martinez NG, Nguyen AT, Hajjar N, Chen MJ, Simon MA. Using a patient navigator to improve postpartum care in an urban women's health clinic. Obstet Gynecol 2017; 129 (05) 925-933
25 Jean-Pierre P, Fiscella K, Winters PC. et al; Patient Navigation Research Program Group. Psychometric development and reliability analysis of a patient satisfaction with interpersonal relationship with navigator measure: a multi-site patient navigation research program study. Psychooncology 2012; 21 (09) 986-992
26 Jean-Pierre P, Winters PC, Clark JA. et al; Patient Navigation Research Program Group. Do better-rated navigators improve patient satisfaction with cancer-related care?. J Cancer Educ 2013; 28 (03) 527-534
27 Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965; 12 (04) 436-445
28 Tan CH, Wilson S, McConigley R. Experiences of cancer patients in a patient navigation program: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Reports 2015; 13 (02) 136-168
29 Gotlib Conn L, Hammond Mobilio M, Rotstein OD, Blacker S. Cancer patient experience with navigation service in an urban hospital setting: a qualitative study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2016; 25 (01) 132-140
30 Sheehan L, Torres A, Lara JL. et al; Latino Consumer Research Team. Qualitative evaluation of a peer navigator program for latinos with serious mental Illness. Adm Policy Ment Health 2018; 45 (03) 495-504
31 Gunn C, Battaglia TA, Parker VA. et al. What makes patient navigation most effective: defining useful tasks and networks. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2017; 28 (02) 663-676
32 Bensink ME, Ramsey SD, Battaglia T. et al; Patient Navigation Research Program. Costs and outcomes evaluation of patient navigation after abnormal cancer screening: evidence from the Patient Navigation Research Program. Cancer 2014; 120 (04) 570-578